H 


DISCABifr 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/constitutionreviseOOnewhrich 


'ff. 


STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 


CONVENTION 


TO 


REVISE  THE  CONSTITUTION 


JUNE,   1912 


MANCHESTER.  N.   H. 

;         PRINTED    BY    THE    JOHN    B.    CLAUKE    COilPANY. 
1912 


jk'>^>^ 


OOCUMtNIS 
CEPT. 


JOURNAL 


CONVENTION  TO  REVISE  THE  CON- 
STITUTION 

JUNE,  1912. 


CoNOOKD,  N.  H.,  June  5,  1912. 

The  delegates  of  the  Convention  to  Eevise  the  Constitution 
assembled  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  on 
Wednesday,  June  5,  1912,  and  were  called  to  order  by  Hon. 
Daniel  Hall  of  Dover. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  William  F.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  Hon. 
John  M.  Mitchell  of  Concord  was  chosen  temporary  chair- 
man. 

Messrs.  Edwin  G.  Eastman  of  Exeter  and  Nathaniel  E 
Mar^"Ti  of  Concord  were  chosen  a  committee  to  escort  the 
temporary  presiding  officer  to  the  chair. 

Oh  assuming  the  chair,  Mr.  Mitchell  addressed  the  Con- 
vention as  follows: 

GE!Nn.E:NrEx  of  tite  Con^'fntion:  — 

Please  accept  my  sincere  thanks  and  grateful  acknowledg-- 
ment  for  this  evidence  of  yonr  confidenee  and  g-enerosity.  An- 
ticipating* j'onr  desire  to  proceed  to  the  work  for  which  we  are 
commissioned  as  promptly  and  expeditiously  as  is  consistent 
with  Oirderly  procedure,  I  now  await  your  pleasure  with  re- 
spect to  completing-  the  temporary,  and  providing  for  the 
permanent  organization  of  the  Conventicn. 

3 


wd.273^6 


*'4*  *'• 'jTouris-al' OP 'Constitutional  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Frank  B.  Preston  of  Rochester^  Mr 
Harrie  M.  Young  of  Manchester  was  chosen  temporary  sec- 
retary. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jesse  M.  Barton  of  Newport, — 

Resolved,  That  a  committee,  consisting  of  two  delegates 
from  each  county,  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  inquire  who 
are  elected  delegates  to  this  Convention. 

The  following  named  gentlemen  were  appointed  as  such 
committee: — 

SITLLIVAN  COUNTT. 

Jesse  M.  Barton  of  Newport. 
Hiram  Parker  of  Lempster. 

ROCKINGHAM   COUNTY. 

Joseph  B.  Sanborn  of  Fremont. 
John  L.  Mitchell  of  Portsmouth. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 

Walter  S.  Meader  of  Rochester. 
George  H.  Sherry  of  Dover. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY. 

Benjamin  F.  Drake  of  Laconia. 
Charles  E.  Tilton  of  Tilton. 

CARROLL  COUNTY. 

Frank  Weeks  of  Ossipee. 

Paul  Wentworth  of  Sandwich. 

MERRIMACK    COUNTY. 

Thomas  F.  Clifford  of  Franklin. 
George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke. 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912. 


HILLSBOBOUGH  COUNTY. 


Arthur  L.  Keyes  of  Milford. 
James  A.  Broderick  of  Manchester. 


CHESHIEE  COUNTY. 


Amos  J.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam. 
Gardner  S.  Howe  of  Hinsdale. 


GKAFTON  COUNTY. 

William  S.  Carter  of  Lebanon. 
James  H.  Bailey  of  Littleton. 

COOS  COUNTY. 

Mitchell  H.  Bowker  of  Whitefield. 
Fred  C.  Cleaveland  of  Lancaster. 

Mr.  Joseph  Madden  of  Keene  presented  the  petition  of 
Patrick  E.  G-riflfin  of  Walpole,  contesting  the  right  of  Daniel 
W.  Connors  of  Walpole  to  a  seat  as  delegate. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  the  petition  was  laid 
on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Edward  H.  Wason  of  Nashua, — 

Resolved,  That  the  temporary  secretary  request  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  to  furnish  this  Convention  with  450  copies  of 
the  published  proceedings  of  the  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1902,  one  copy  for  each  member  of  this  Convention,  and 
its  oflRcers. 

It  was  moved  by  Mr.  William  B.  Fellows  of  Tilton  that 
the  resolution  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  resolution  did  not  prevail. 

The  question  being  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Wason  of 
Nashua, — 

On  a  viva  vnce  vote  the  resolution  was  adopted. 


6 


Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


Mr.  Barton  of  Newport^  for  the  Committee  on  Credentials, 
reported  that  prima  facie  evidence  had  been  presented  to 
them  of  the  election  of  the  following  named  gentlemen  as 
delegates  to  this  Convention. 


ROCKINGHAM   COUNTY. 


Atkinson 

Charles  I.  Pressey. 

Auburn     . 

Edward  C.  Griffin. 

Brentwood 

John  J.  Knights. 

Candia 

George  H.  McDuffee. 

Chester     . 

Cyrus  F.  Marston. 

Danville    . 

Clarence  M.  Collins. 

Deerfield 

Jonathan  H.  Batchelder 

Derry 

William  H.  Benson. 

Frederick  J.  Shepard. 

John  E.  Webster. 

East  Kingston 

William  D.  Ingalls. 

E^ping      . 

John  Leddy. 

Exeter 

Henry  W.  Anderson. 

Edwin  G.  Eastman. 

Arthur  0.  Fuller. 

John  Scammon. 

Fremont   . 

Joseph  B.  Sanborn. 

Greenland 

Harrie  A.  Holmes. 

Hampstead 

Frank  W.  Emerson. 

Hampton 

Horace  M.  Lane. 

Hampton  Falls 

George  C.  Healey. 

Kensington 

Stewart  E.  Kowe. 

Kingston 

Leonard  W.  Collins. 

Londonderry 

Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury. 

Newcastle 

James  W.  P.ridham. 

Newfields 

George  E.  Leighton. 

Newington 

Frederick  H.  Pickering. 

Newmarket 

Charles  A.  Morse. 

George  H.  Willey. 

Newton     . 

John  E.  Hayford. 

North  Hampton 

James  R.  Dow. 

Wednesday  June  5.  1912. 


Northwood 

. 

William  H.  Towle. 

Nottingham 

. 

Perley  B.  Batchelder. 

Plaistow    . 

. 

Fred  P.  Hill. 

Portsmouth- 

-Ward  1 

William  T.  Entwistle. 
John  August  Hett. 

Ward  2 

Charles  H.  Batchelder. 
Harry  E.  Boynton. 
Frederick  M.  Sise. 

Ward  3 

John  L.  Mitchell. 
William  H.  Moran. 

Ward  4 

Ernest  L.  Guptill. 

Ward  5 

Eugene  B.  Eastman. 

Raymond 

William  G.  Brown. 

Rye 

Albert  H.  Drake. 

Salem 

George  C.  Gordon. 
Lester  Wallace  Hall. 

Sandown  . 

John  W.  Lovering. 

Seabrook 

Charles  D.  Foote. 

South  Hampi 

■on 

Frank  M.  Jewell. 

Stratham 

George  E.  Gowen. 

Windham 

John  E.  Cochran. 

STBAFF 

ORD  COUNTY. 

Barrington 

. 

Frank  H.  Clark. 

Dover,  Ward 

1 

Ernest  B.  Folsom. 
Clarence  I.  Hurd. 

Ward 

2 

John  Main. 
Herbert  K.  Otis. 
George  H.  Sherry. 

Ward 

3 

George  G.  Neal. 
Arthur  G.  Whittemore 

Ward 

4 

Elisha  R.  Brown. 
Alonzo  Melvin  Foss. 
Daniel  Hall. 

Ward 

5 

John  H.  Wesley. 

Durham    . 

. 

Albert  DeMerritt. 

Farmington 

Ulysses  S.  Knox. 

Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


Farmington 

Charles  W.  T.  Wilson. 

Lee 

Louis  H.  Snell. 

Madbury  . 

Charles  G.  Sanders. 

Middleton 

William  F.  Hanson. 

Milton 

Fred  B.  Eoberts. 

New  Durham     .          . 

Zanello  D.  Berry. 

Eochester,  Ward  1     . 

Albert  L.  Eichards. 

Ward  2      . 

Frank  B.  Preston. 

.  Ward  3      . 

Walter  S.  Header. 

Ward  4      . 

Aurelle  Beaudoin. 

Isidore  P.  Marcotte. 

Ward  5      . 

Orrin  A.  Hoyt. 

Ward  6      . 

Albert  Wallace. 

Kollinsford 

Gardner  Grant. 

Somersworth,  Ward  1 

John  N.  Haines. 

Ward  2 

Fred  H.  Brown. 

Ward  3 

Louis  P.  Cote. 

Ward  4 

Michael  P.  Flanagan. 

George  Letourneau. 

Ward  5 

Treffle  Leclerc. 

Strafford  .          .          . 

Woodbury  W.  Durgin. 

BET,K> 

FAP  COUNT y:. 

Alton 

Charles  H.  McDuffee. 

Barnstead 

Frank  H.  Moore. 

Belmont    .          . 

Edwin  C.  Bean. 

Centre  Harbor  . 

Leonard   B.   Morrill. 

Gilford      .          .         . 

James  E.  Morrill. 

Gilmanton 

George  C.  Parsons. 

Laconia,  Ward  1 

True  E.  Prescott. 

Ward  2 

Edward  M.  Eichardson 

Ward  3 

John  T.  Busiel. 

Ward  4         . 

Oscar  L.  Young. 

Ward  5  '      . 

William  D.  Veazey. 

Ward  6         . 

Benjamin  F.  Drake. 

George  H.  Saltmarsh. 

Meredith 

Simeon  M.  Estes. 

Wednesday,  June  5,  1912. 


Kew  Hampton  . 

Herbert  M.  Thyng. 

Sanbornton 

Robert  M.  Wright. 

Tilton 

William  B.  Fellows. 

Charles  E.  Tilton. 

CARROLL  COUNTY. 

Albany 

James  T.  Povall. 

Bartlett    .          . 

Ealza  E.  Andrews. 

Brookfield 

George  A.  Wiggin. 

Chatham  .          .          . 

Hazen  Chandler. 

Conway     .          .          . 

Holmes  B.  Fifield. 

James  L.  Gibson. 

Arthur  R.  Shirley. 

Eaton        •          • 

Henry  H.  Robertson. 

Effingham 

James  L.  Wormwood 

Freedom   . 

George  F.  Huckins. 

Hart's  Location 

Charles  H.  Morey. 

Jackson     .          .          . 

Nelson  I.  Trickey 

Madison    . 

Edward  E.  Hoyt. 

Moultonborough 

James  E.  French. 

Ossipee     . 

Frank  Weeks. 

Sandwich 

Paul  Wentworth. 

Tamworth 

Edward  S.  Pollard. 

Tuftonborongh 

Robert  Lamprey. 

Wakefield 

William  W.  Berry. 

Wolfeboro 

Sewall  W.  Abbott. 

Frank  P.  Hobbs. 

MEHBIM 

!ACK  ooTimn. 

AUenstown 

Charles  H.  Smith. 

Andover    .          . 

George  W.  Stone. 

Boscawen 

Willis  G.  Buxton. 

Bow          .          . 

Henry  M.  Baker. 

Bradford 

Everett  Kittredge. 

Canterbury 

Henry  L.  Clough. 

Chichester          .          . 

John  L.  T.  Shaw. 

Concord,  Ward  1        . 

George  E.  Farrand. 

10       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


Concord,  Ward  1 
Ward  2 
Wa.rd  3 
AVard  4 


Ward  5 
Ward  6 


Ward  7 


Ward  8 
Ward  9 

Danbury  . 
Dunbarton 
Epsom 

Franklin,  Ward  1 
Ward  2 

Ward  3 


Henniker  . 
Hill 

Hooksett 
Hopkinton 
Loudon  . 
Newbury  . 
New  London 
Northfield 
Pembroke 


Pittsfield  . 


John  E.  Harden. 
Clarence  L  Tibbetts. 
Abijah  Hollis. 
Allen  Hollis. 
James  0.  Lyford. 
John  M.  Mitchell. 
Charles  R.  Corning. 
Arthur  P.  Morrill. 
Charles  P.  Bancroft. 
Henry  A.  Kimball. 
Nathaniel  E.  Martin. 
William  W.  Flint. 
Edward  J.  Hatch. 
Frank  P.  Quimby. 
Howard  F.  Hill. 
Edward  J.  Gallagher. 
John  Henneberry. 
Harry  G.  Dean. 
Bradford  Burnham. 
Warren  Tripp. 
Rufus  P.  Gardner. 
Charles  H.  Bean. 
Frank  E.  Woodbury. 
Thomas  F.  Clifford. 
Seth  W.  Jones. 
Charles  A.  Wilkins. 
Ellon  S.  Little. 
Fred  N.  Mitchell. 
Arthur  J.  Boutwell. 
Albert  B.  Sargent. 
Joseph  A.  Donigan. 
Justin  0.  Wellman. 
Edwin  J.  Young. 
George  W.  Fowler. 
Henry  T.  Fowler. 
Joseph  A.  Rainville. 
Edward  Everett  Clark. 
Nathaniel  S.  Drake. 


Wednesday  June  5,  1912. 


11 


Salisbury 

John  Shaw. 

Sutton 

Milton  B.  Wadleigh. 

Warner 

Edward  H.  Carroll. 

Webster    . 

Harvey  C.  Sawyer. 

Wilmot      . 

Fred  E.  Goodhue. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY. 

Amherst    . 

Horace  T.  Harvell. 

Antrim 

Hiram  W.  Eldredge. 

Bedford     . 

George  D.  Soper. 

Bennington 

Arthur  J.  Pierce. 

Brookline 

Orville  D.  Fessenden 

Deering     . 

Edwin  F.  Button. 

Francestown 

Edson  H.  Patch. 

Goffstown 

Gecrge  P.  Hadley. 

Alvin  P.  Seeton. 

Greenfield 

Willis  D.  Hardy. 

Greenville 

Daniel  J.  Brown. 

Hancock    . 

Clarence  H.  Ware. 

Hillsborough 

Charles  S.  Flanders. 

George  W.  Haslet. 

Hollis 

Daniel  W.  Hayden. 

Hudson     . 

Henry  C.  Brown. 

Litchfield 

Amos  Saunders. 

Lyndeborough    . 

Walter  S.  Tarbell. 

Manchester,  Ward  1 

Narcisse  Eicher. 

James  A.  Sayers. 

Joseph  Tait. 

Ward  2 

Charles  B.  Brown. 

Elliot  C.  Lambert. 

Jesse  B.  Pattoo. 

George  H.  Warren. 

Allan  M.  Wilson. 

Ward  3 

John  G.  Crawford. 

Joseph  0.  Gagnon. 

Edwin  F.  Jones. 

Eugene  G.  Libby. 

12       JouiiNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 


Manchester,  Ward  3 
Ward  4 


Ward  5 


Ward  6 


Ward  7 
Ward  8 


Ward  9 


Ward  10 


Liidwig  Lindquist. 
Hobart  Pillsbury. 
John  B.  Cavanaugh. 
Henry  B.  Fairbanks. 
William  G.  Garmon. 
George  I.  Haselton. 
Frederick  W.  Shontell. 
Harrie  M.  Young. 
James  A.  Broderick. 
Martin  Connor. 
William  B.  Eagan. 
James  L.  Glynn. 
Thomas  F.  Howe. 
Peter  J.  Magan. 
Patrick  J.  Eyan. 
Thomas  F.  Sheehan. 
Joseph  P.  Chatel. 
Joseph  M.  McDonough. 
Almus  W.  Morse. 
Robert  I.  Stevens. 
Edward  B.  Woodbury. 
Arthur  J.  Moquin. 
Herman  Rodelsperger. 
Rudolph  Schiller. 
Charles  C.  Tinkham. 
Henry  J.  Van  Vliet. 
Theophile  G.  Biron. 
Odilon  Demers. 
Francois  X.  Gagne. 
Euclide  F.  Gooffrion. 
Winfred  D.  Hebert. 
Horace  Martel. 
Armelle  Turcotte. 
Joseph  Chevrette. 
John  J.  Connor. 
John  J.  Donnelly. 
Frank  J.  Leclerc. 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912. 


13 


Mason 

Merrimack 

Milford 


Mont  Vernon    . 
Nashua,  Ward  1 


Ward  2 
Ward  3 


Ward  4 
Ward  5 
Ward  6 
Ward  7 


AYard  8 


Ward  9 


'New   Boston 
New  Ipswich 
Pelham     . 
Peterborough 


Sharon 

Temple 

Weare 

Wilton 

Windsor 


Albert  B.  Eaton. 
Everett  E.  Parker. 
Arthur  L.  Keyes. 
Clinton  A.  McLane. 
Fred  T.  Wadleigh. 
Frank  J.  Conner. 
Harry  P.  Greeley. 
Charles  J.  Hamblett. 
Charles  0.  Andrews. 
Eobert  A.  French. 
James  A.  Gilmore. 
James  P.  Lampron. 
Frank  Rancour. 
Edward  E.  Parker. 
Frederick  J.  Gaffney. 
Edward  H.  Wason. 
Thomas  F.  Moran. 
Frederick  D.  Eunnells. 
Arthur  K.  Woodbury. 
Horace  H.  Phaneuf. 
John  F.  Shea. 
Willard  C.  Tolles. 
Frank  S.  Clancy. 
Charles  Dionne^  Jr. 
Joseph  Ducharme. 
George  Theriault. 
Samuel  L.  Marden. 
William  E.  Davis. 
Charles  W.  Hobbs. 
Eben  W.  Jones. 
Ezra  M.  Smith. 
George  M.  Smith. 
Willie  W.  Colburn. 
Byron  L.  Morse. 
George  E.  Bales. 
Joseph  E.  Xelson. 


14       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


CHESHIKE  COUNTT. 


Alstead     . 

John  W.  Prentiss. 

Chesterfield 

David  W.  Slade. 

Dublin      . 

William  H.  Pierce. 

Fitzwilliam 

Amos  J.  Blake. 

Gilsum 

Osmon  H.  Hubbard. 

Harrisville 

Thomas  J.  Winn. 

Hinsdale 

Gardner  S.  Howe. 

Edalbert  J.  Temple. 

Jaffrey 

George  H.  Duncan. 

Will  J.  Mower. 

Keene,  Ward  1 

Orville  E.  Cain. 

Charles  M.  Norwood. 

Ward  2 

Adolf  W.  Pressler. 

Jerry  P.  Wellman. 

Ward  3 

Martin  V.  B.  Clark. 

Charles  C.  Sturtevant 

Ward  4 

Robert  E.  Faulkner. 

Ward  5 

Joseph  Madden. 

Marlborough 

Levi  A.  Fuller. 

Marlow 

Rockwell  F.  Craig. 

Nelson 

James  E.  Ruffle. 

Eichmond 

Almon  Twitchell. 

Rindge 

Charles  W.  Fletcher. 

Roxbury    . 

David  B.  Nims. 

Stoddard 

Henry  E.  Spalding. 

Sullivan    . 

Leslie  H.  Goodnow. 

Sur.ry 

Hiram  F.  Newell. 

Swanzey    . 

George  E.  Whitcomb. 

Troy     "     . 

Melvin  T.  Stone. 

Walpole    . 

Daniel  AV.  Connors. 

Frank  A.  Spaulding. 

Westmoreland 

Elmer  T.  Nims. 

Winchester 

John  P.  Ball. 

David  0.  Fisher. 

Wednesday,  June  5,  191*2. 


15 


SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Acworth    ....         Guy  S.  Neal. 

Charlestown       .          .          .         Oscar  C.  Young. 

Claremont          .          .          .         Hartley  L.  Brooks. 

Henry  N.  Hurd. 

Emerson  A.  Quimby. 

George  P.  Eossiter. 

James  Duncan  Upham 

Cornish     ....         Fenno  B.  Comings. 

Croydon    . 

Edgar  W.  Davis. 

Goshen 

Burk  Booth. 

Grantham 

William  H.  Howard. 

Langdon   . 

Charles  Winch. 

Lempster 

Hiram  Parker. 

Newport   . 

Jesse  M.  Barton. 

John  W.  Johnson. 

Ernest  A.  Eobinson. 

Plainfield            .          .          .         Charles  A.  Tracy. 

Springfield 

Carl  B.  Philbrick. 

Sunapee    . 

Murvin  A.  Bailey. 

Unity 

Charles  A.  Newton. 

Washington 

Melvin  E.  Hixson. 

GKAFTON  COUNTY. 

Alexandria         .          ...         Ned  A.  Mathews. 

Ashland    . 

Ellis  G.  Gammons. 

Bath 

John  H.  DeGross. 

Benton 

Lebina  H.  Parker. 

Bethlehem 

Fred  D.  Lewis. 

Bristol       . 

Henry  C.  Whipple. 

Campton 

Darius  Moulton. 

Canaan 

Charles  0.  Barney. 

Dorchester 

Henry  M.  Merrill. 

Faston 

Charles  A.  Young. 

Ellsworth 

Yemie  H.  Avery. 

Enfield      . 

Thomas  J.  Carleton. 
Eugene  A.  Wells. 

16       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


Franconia 
Grafton 
Groton 
Hanover    . 

Haverhill 


Hebron 
Holderness 
Landaff     . 
Lebanon   . 


Lincoln 
Lisbon 

Littleton 


Lyman 

Lyme 

Monroe 

Orange 

Orford 

Piermont 

Plymouth 

Rumney    . 

Thornton 

Warren 

Waterville 

Wentworth 

Woodstock 


Henry  Spooner. 
George  S.  Barney. 
Charlie  D.  Jewell. 
Edward  P.  Storrs. 
Frank  A.  Updyke. 
Edward  M.  Clark. 
William  E.  Lawrence. 
William  F.  Whitcher. 
Albert  E.  Moore. 
Robert  P.  Curry. 
Raymond  B.  Stevens. 
William  S.  Carter. 
William  H.  Hatton. 
Reuben  C.  True. 
Thomas  P.  Waterman. 
George  E.  Henry. 
George  Conrad  Brummer. 
Eri  C.  Cakes. 
James  H.  Bailey. 
Richard  T.  Eastman. 
George  A.  Veazie. 
Arthur  N.  Shute. 
David  A.  Grant. 
Daniel  R.  Gilchrist. 
Charles  H.  Ford. 
Robej-t  0.  Carr. 
Samuel  H.  Ames. 
Davis  B.  Keniston. 
Frederick  P.  Weeks. 
Henry  W.  Herbert. 
Frank  L.  Hazeltine. 
Frank  C.  Clement. 
Clarence  H.  Green. 
Calvin  T.  Shute. 
George  H.  Green. 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912. 


17 


OOOS  COUNTY. 


Berlin,  Ward  1 

Henry  A.  SmitJi. 

Patrick  J.  Smyth. 

John  T.  Stewart. 

Ward  2 

Herbert  I.  Goss. 

John  B.  Noyes. 

Edmund  Sullivan. 

Ward  3 

Jonathan  J.  Haanei. 

Eobert  B.  Wolfe. 

Carroll       . 

Edward  M.  Sheehe. 

Clarksville 

Willis  A.  Harriman. 

Colebrook 

Jason  H.  Dudley. 

Thomas  F.  Johnson. 

Oolumbia 

Frank  P.  Lang. 

Dalton       . 

Henry  F.  Whitcomb. 

Dummer 

.  •      Adam  W.  Wight. 

Errol 

Arthur  E.  Bennett. 

Gorham     . 

Alfred  E.  Evans. 

Jefferson 

Don  C.  Clough. 

Lancaster 

Fred  C.  Cleaveland. 

Irving  W.  Drew. 

George  F.  Morris. 

Milan 

Frank  M.  Hancock. 

No-rthumberland 

Henry  H.  Hayes. 

Judson  A.  Potter. 

Pittsburg 

George  W.  Baldwin. 

Kandolph 

Arthur  L.  Watson. 

Shelburne 

James  Simpson. 

Stark 

William  T.  Pike. 

Stewartstown 

Perley  Knapp. 

Stratford 

John  C.  Pattee. 

Whitefield 

.          .          .         Mitchell  H.  Bowker. 

Benjamin  C.  Garland. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Corning  of  Concord,  the  report  was  ac- 
cepted and  adopted. 


The  roll  was  then  called,  and  383  gentlemen  answering  to 


18       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

their  names^  a  quorum  of  the  Convention  was  declared  pres- 
ent. 

M-r.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Convention  pro- 
ceed to  the  election  of  a  permanent  president  by  ballot  and 
that  the  chair  appoint  three  tellers  to  distribute,  collect  and 
assort  the  votes^  but  subsequently  withdrew  the  motion. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter  moved  that  the  Hon.  Edwin  F. 
Jones  of  Manchester  be  elected  permanent  president  by 
acclamation.  The  motion  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Madden  of 
Keene. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  Hon.  Edwin  F.  Jones  was  elected 
President  of  the  Convention. 

Messrs.  Wason  of  Nashua  and  DeMerritt  of  Durham  were 
appointed  to  conduct  the  President-elect  to  the  chair. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  assuming  the  chair  Mr.  Jones  addressed  the  Convention 
as  follows: 

Gen^hlemen  of  TKB  CONYETeriON:  — 

For  this  token  of  your  esteem  and  confidence,  I  would  return 
you  my  sincere  thanks,  doubly  sincere  for  the  handsome  and 
unanimons  manner  in  which  the  choice  has  been  made.  I  deem 
it  an  honor  second  to  none  that  can  come  to  a  citizen  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  to  prove  to  you  my  appreciation  of  the  g-reat 
honor  which  you  have  conferred  upon  me,  I  shall  endeavor, 
with  fairness  and  with  strict  compliance  with  the  rules  that 
may  be  adopted  by  the  Convention  to  preside  over  the  deliber- 
ations of  this  body,  in  order  that  we  mOij^  as  quickly  as  possi- 
ble perform  the  duties  w*hich  have  been  imposed  upon  us  by 
the  people  of  this  state.  Without  your  assistance  I  can  do 
little,  working  together  we  can  accomplish  the  work  satis- 
factorily, I  trust. 

It  is  a  great  task  and  an  important  duty  that  has  been  en- 
trusted to  us.  In  considering  the  proposals  Avhich  shall  come 
before  this  Convention  for  changes  in  the  fundamental  law  of 
this  state,  let  us  proceed  with  caution,  with  deliberation,  with 
tliought.  If  we  remember  the  success  of  the  old  constitution, 
if  we  respect  the  work  of  the  fathers,  if  we  see  how  that  work 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  19 

has  stood  during-  a  century  and  a  quarter,  if  we  cling-  to  the 
traditions  and  landmarks  of  the  past,  we  shall  do  well;  and  if 
we  do  not  move  for  any  great  chang-e  in  that  constitution  uhder 
which  we  have  lived  so  long-  and  so  happily  in  this  state, 
and  do  not  move  until  after  the  most  mature  deliberation  and 
careful  uiscussion,  we  have  decided  in  our  own  minds  that  we 
are  willing  to  extend  to  the  people  the  opportunity  to  make 
chang-es,  which  we,  out  of  our  judgment  and  out  of  our  deliber- 
ations shall  heartily  submit  to  them, — then  we  will  have  done 
something  which  will  be  satisfactory  to  ourselves,  and  perhaps 
something  which  will  be   ratified  by  the  people. 

Then  let  us  proceed  with  caution,  with  deliberation,  and 
with   care. 

Once  more  I  thank  you  for  the  honor  you  have  given  me, 
and  I  await  the  pleasure  o£  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  proceeded  to  ballot 
for  Secretary  of  the  Convention. 

The  President  appointed  as  tellers  Mess.rs.  Hill  of  Concord, 
Hnrd  of  Claremont,  Farrand  of  Concord,  Lamhert  of  Man- 
chester, and  Norwood  of  Keene. 

The  ballot  for  Secretary  resulted  as  follows: 

Whole  number  of  ballots  cast 383 

Necessary  to  a  choice 192 

Harry  F.  Lake  of  Concord 2 

Thomas  H.  Madigan^  Jr.,  of  Manchester 119 

Allan  Chester  Clark  of  Concord 262 

And  Allan  Chester  Clark  having  received  a  majority  of 
all  the  ballots  cast  was  declared  elected. 

Mr.  Clark  appeared  and  qualified  before  President  Jones. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  Qnimby  of  Concord^  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted: 

Besolved,  That  a  committee  of  twenty^  to  consist  of  two 
from  each  county^  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  select  and 
report  to  the  Convention  the  names  of  persons  to  fill  the 
offices  of  assistant  secretary,  sergeant-at-arms,  chaplain,  three 


20       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

doorkeepers,  a  warden  of  the  coat-room,  and  an  official  sten- 
ographer. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee: 

Messrs.  Quimby  of  Concord,  Clough  of  Canterbury,  Kewton 
of  Unity,  Barton  of  Newport,  Young  of  Laconia,  Prescott  of 
Laconia,  Anderson  of  Exeter,  Morse  of  Newmarket,  Whitte- 
more  of  Dover,  Brown  of  Somersworth,  Sullivan  of  Berlin, 
Evans  of  Gorham,  Oakes  of  Littleton,  Shute  of  Wentworth, 
French  of  Moultonborough,  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro,  Warren  of 
Manchester,  Tolles  of  Nashua,  Cain  of  Keene,  and  Winn  of 
Harris  ville. 

Mr.  H'O'bbs  of  Wolfeboro  offered  the  following  resolution: 

R^olved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  instructed  to  pro- 
cure for  the  use  of  the  members  425  copies  daily  of  the 
Manchester  Union,  the  Concord  Evening  Monitor^  and  the 
Concord  Daily  Patriot. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clark  of  Haverhill,  the  resolution  was 
laid  upon  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin, — 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  authorized  to  appoint  three 
pages. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  ten,  one  from  each  county, 
be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  report  rules  for  the  government 
of  this  Convention  and  recommend  methods  of  procedure, 
and  until  the  report  of  this  committee  shall  have  been  ac- 
cepted and  adopted  the  rules  of  the  Convention  of  1902  be 
adopted  as  the  rules  of  this  Convention. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee:     Messrs.  Wason  of  Nashua,  George  W.  Fowlei 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  21 

of  Pembroke,  Scammon  of  Exeter,  Hurd  of  Dover,  Madden 
of  Keene^  Dudley  of  Colebrook,  Bailey  of  Littleton,  Bean  of 
Belmont,  Gibson  of  Conway,  Hurd  of  Claremont. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  N'ashua, — 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  adjourn,  it  adjourn 
to  meet  this  afternoon  at  2  o'clock. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gladden  of  Keene,  the  petition  of  Pat- 
•rick  E.  Griffin  of  Walpole,  contesting  the  right  of  Daniel  W. 
Connors  of  AValpole  to  a  seat  as  a  delegate,  was  taken  from 
the  table  and  referred  to  a  special  committee,  consisting  of 
one  member  from  each  county. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee:  Messrs.  Fuller  of  Exeter,  Stone  of  Andover, 
Howe  of  Hinsdale,  Haines  of  Somersworth,  Wentworth  of 
Sandwich,  Yeazey  of  Laconia,  Broderick  of  Manchester,  John- 
son of  Newport,  Cleaveland  of  Lancaster,  Gilchrist  of  Monroe. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Barney  of  Canaan,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  drawing  of  seats  be  made  a  special  order 
for  this  afternoon  at  2.05  o'clock,  that  the  method  followed 
in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  be  adopted  and  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  .Convention  draw  seats  for  absent  members. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Laconia,  Messrs.  Van  Vliet  of 
Manchester  and  Drake  of  Laconia  were  permitted  to  select 
seats  in  advance  of  the  drawing,  both  being  deprived  of  their 
eyesight. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  until  otherwise  ordered,  the  hours  of  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention  'be  10.30  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  and 
2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wliitcher  of  Haverhill,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


22      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

AFTEEJS'OOX. 

The  Convention  met  at  2  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Quimby  of  Concord^  for  the  Committee  on  Permanent 
Organization,  reported,  recommending  the  following  named 
lady  and  gentlemen  for  the  several  offices: 

Assistant  Secretary,  Bernard  W.  Carey  of  Newport. 

Sergeant-at-Arms,  Albert  P.  Davis  of  Concord. 

Chaplain,  Eev.  Charles  C.  Garland  of  Concord. 

Doorkeepers,  John  F.  Bartlett  of  Sandown,  Oscar  D.  Bev- 
erstock  of  Keene,  and  Charles  A.  Holden  of  Rumney. 

Warden  of  Coat-room,  Eugene  D.  Sanborn  of  Fremont. 

Official  Stenographer,  Lizzie  H.  Sanborn  of  Laconia. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendations  were 
adopted. 

The  committee  also  recommended  the  election  of  George 
Goodhue  of  Concord,  doorkeeper,  Augustus  P.  Home  of  La- 
conia, assistant  warden  of  the  coat-room,  and  Ray  E.  Burkett 
of  Concord,  assistant  stenographer,  to  serve  during  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  recommendations  were  adopted. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  for  the  Committee  on  Rules  and 
Methods  of  Procedure,  submitted  the  following  report: 

RULES  OF  THE  CONVEINTTON". 

1.  The  President  shall  take  the  chair  at  p-recisely  the 
hour  to  which  the  Convention  shall  have  adjourned,  shall 
immediately  call  the  members  to  order,  and  at  the  commence- 
ment of  each  day's  session  shall  cause  the  journal  of  the  pre- 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  23 

ceding  day  to  be  read.  He  shall  preserve  decorum  and  order^ 
and  may  speak  on  points  of  order  in  preference  to  other  mem- 
bers, and  may  substitute  any  member  to  perform  the  duties 
of  the  chair,  such  substitution  not  to  extend  beyond  an 
adjournment. 

2.  A  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  Convention  shall 
constitute  a  quorum. 

3.  All  committees  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President, 
unless  otherwise  directed  by  the  Convention;  and  the  first 
named  member  of  any  committee  appointed  by  the  President 
shall  be  chairman. 

4.  Xo  person  but  the  members  and  officers  of  the  Con- 
vention shall  be  admitted  within  the  chamber  unless  by  invi- 
tation of  the  President  or  order  of  the  Convention. 

5.  No  member  shall  speak  more  than  twice  to  the  same 
question  without  leave  of  the  Convention. 

6.  When  any  question  is  under  debate  no  motion  shall 
be  received  but,  first,  to  adjourn;  second,  to  lay  on  the  table; 
third,  to  postpone  to  a  day  certain;  fourth,  to  commit;  fifth, 
to  amend — which  several  motions  shall  take  precedence  in  the 
order  in  which  they  are  arranged.  Motions  to  adjourn  and 
lay  on  the  table  shall  be  decided  without  debate. 

7.  Any  member  may  call  for  a  division  of  the  question, 
when  the  sense  will  admit  of  it;  but  a  motion  to  strike  out 
and  insert  shall  not  be  divided. 

8.  A  motion  for  commitment,  until  it  is  decided,  shall 
precede  all  amendments  to  the  main  question;  and  all  mo- 
tions and  reports  may  be  committed  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
Convention. 

9.  No  vote  shall  be  reconsidered  unless  the  motion  for 
reconsideration  be  made  by  a  member  who  voted  with  the 
majority. 

10.  Every  question  shall  be  decided  by  yeas  and  nays, 


24      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

whenever  a  demand  for  the  same  shall  be  made  and  sustained 
by  at  least  ten  members. 

11.  The  Convention  may  resolve  itself  into  a  committee 
of  the  whole  at  any  time  on  the  motion  of  a  member;  and, 
in  forming  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  President  shall 
leave  the  chair  and  appoint  a  chairman  to  preside  in  com- 
mittee; and  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  Convention  shall  be 
observed  in  Committee  of  the  AYhole,  except  the  rule  limiting 
the  times  of  speaking  and  the  rule  relating  to  calls  for  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

12.  After  the  journal  has  been  read  and  corrected,  the 
order  of  business  shall  be  as  follows:  First,  the  presentation 
of  resolutions  and  petitions;  second^  the  reports  of  commit- 
tees; third,  any  special  order  for  the  hour;  fourth,  the  unfin- 
ished business  of  the  preceding  day. 

13.  All  motions  and  resolutions  proposing  any  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  shall  be  offered  in  writing,  and  be 
read  by  the  Secretary  for  the  information  of  the  Convention, 
when,  unless  rejected  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  shall  be  re- 
ferred to  an  appropriate  committee,  who  shall  examine  and 
report  thereon  to  the  Convention,  with  such  recommenda- 
tions as  they  may  deem  advisable.  No  proposition  for  an 
amendment  shall  be  received  after  Tuesda}^  June  11,  1912, 
unless  by  unanimous  consent  of  the  Convention  or  upon  the 
recommendation  of  a  standing  committee. 

14.  There  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President  five  com- 
mittees, consisting  of  twenty  members  each,  and  each  county 
shall  be  represented  thereon.  Said  committees  shall  be  on 
the  following  subjects,  viz.: 

(1)  On  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

(2)  On  Legislative  Department. 

(3)  On  Judicial  Department. 


WEbNESDAY,  June  5,  1912.  25 

(4)  On  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution,  and 
Other  Proposed  Amendments. 

(5)  On  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Xashua^  the  report  was  ac- 
cepted and  the  rules  adopted  as  the  rules  of  the  Convention, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  Secretary  was' 
instructed  to  secure  the  usual  number  of  printed  copies  of  the 
rules  for  the  use  of  the  members  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill, — 

Besolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  instructed  to 
furnish  425  copies  of  Colby's  Manual  of  the  Constitution  of 
New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1902,  for  the  use  of  the  officers 
and  members. 

Mr.  Young  of  Manchester  called  for  the  special  order  of  the 
afternoon,  the  same  being  the  drawing  of  seats. 

Pay  E.  Burkett  of  Concord  qualified  before  the  President 
as  assistant  stenographer. 

Mr.  Flint  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  resolution: 
Resolution  No.  1. 
Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Besolved,  That  Articles  9  and  10  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be,  and  hereby  are,  amended 
to  read  as  follows: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  as  follows: 

Every  town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  shall  have 
one  representative  in  the  General  Court,  except  as  hereinafter 
specified. 


26      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  city  of  Manchester  shall  have  five,  and  all  other  cities 
in  the  state,  together  with  the  town  of  Claremont,  shall  have 
three  representatives. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Flint  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Flint  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Resolution  No.  2. 

Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  24  and  25  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be,  and  hereby  are, 
amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Art.  24.  The  Senate  shall  consist  of  50  members,  who 
shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years,  from  the  first  Wednes- 
day of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  Senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  di- 
vide the  state  into  50  districts  of  contiguous  territory,  as 
nearly  equal  as  may  be,  without  dividing  towns  and  unin- 
corporated places,  on  the  basis  of  population  according  to 
the  last  census  of  the  United  States,  or  of  this  state. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Flint  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Flint  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Resolution  No.  3. 

Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  97,  98  and  99  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be,  and  hereby  are, 
amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Art.  97.  Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  Con^ 
stitution  may  be  proposed  by  either  house  of  the  legislature. 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  27 

Any  proposed  amendment  or  amendments  which  shall  be 
introduced  in  either  house,  and  which  shall  be  approved  by 
a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  General  Court,  shall  be 
entered  on  the  journal  of  each  house,  together  with  the  ayes 
and  nays  thereon.  When  any  proposed  amendment  or  amend- 
ments shall  be  thus  passed  by  a  majority  of  each  house  of 
the  legislature,  and  entered  on  the  respective  journals  thereof, 
the  Secretary  of  State  shall  submit  such  proposed  amend- 
ment or  amendments  to  the  vote  of  the  people  at  the  next 
general  election  (except  the  legislature  direct  a  special  elec- 
tion, in  which  case  the  amendment  or  amendments  shall  be 
submitted  at  such  special  election),  and  if  a  majority  of  the 
qualified  electors  voting  shall  approve  and  ratify  such  pro- 
posed amendment  or  amendments  at  said  regular  or  special 
election,  such  amendment  or  amendments  shall  become  a 
part  of  this  Constitution. 

Until  otherwise  provided  by  law,  the  Secretary  of  State 
shall  have  such  proposed  amendment  or  amendments  pub- 
lished in  at  least  two  newspapers  in  each  county  for  a  period 
of  not  less  than  90  days.  If  more  than  one  amendment  shall 
be  submitted,  such  proposed  amendment  or  amendments  shall 
be  submitted  in  such  manner  that  the  electors  may  vote  for 
or  against  such  proposed  amendments  separately. 

Art.  98.  Whenever  a  convention  shall  be  called  by  the 
legislature  to  propose  alterations,  revisions  or  amendments 
to  this  Constitution,  or  to  propose  a  new  Constitution,  such 
amendments,  alterations,  revisions  or  new  Constitution  pro- 
posed by  such  convention  shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sub- 
mitted to  the  electors  of  the  state  at  a  general  or  special 
election,  and  be  approved  by  the  majority  of  the  electors 
voting  thereon. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Flint  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  introduced  the  following  resolution: 


28      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolution  No.  4. 

Relating  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  and  Future  Mode 
of  Amending  the   Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  Xew  Hampshire  be 
amended  as  follows: 

After  Article  5  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  add  a 
new  article,  which  shall  be  numbered  Article  6,  and  which 
shall  be  as  follows: 

Akt.  6.  iN'o  act  or  resolve  passed  by  the  General  Court 
shall  take  effect  earlier  than  ninety  days  after  the  final  ad- 
journment of  the  General  Court  passing  the  same,  except  ap- 
propriation bills  authorizing  expenditures  from  the  treasury 
of  the  state  for  purposes  authorized  by  existing  law,  and  ex- 
cepting also  acts  or  resolves  declared  to  be  emergency  meas- 
ures. An  act  or  resolve  declared  to  be  an  emergency  measure 
shall  contain  a  preamble  briefly  setting  forth  the  facts  con- 
stituting the  alleged  emergency.  A  separate  vote  shall  be 
taken  on  the  preamble  of  such  act  or  resolve  by  a  call  of  the 
yeas  and  nays,  and  unless  the  preamble  is  adopted  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  total  membership  of  each  branch  of  the 
General  Court,  the  act  or  resolve  shall  not  be  an  emergency 
measure. 

If  within  ninety  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  any 
General  Court  a  referendum  petition  signed  by  not  less  than 
four  thousand  qualified  voters  of  the  state  shall  be  filed  with 
the  Secretary  of  State  against  any  act  or  resolve  passed  by 
that  General  Court,  except  as  above  stated,  such  act  or  re- 
solve shall  not  become  law,  but  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
voters  of  the  state  at  the  ensuing  state  election.  If  a  major- 
ity of  the  votes  then  cast  thereon  is  in  the  affirmative,  such 
act  or  resolve  shall  become  law  in  thirty  days  after  such  state 
election;  but  if  the  majority  is  in  the  negative,  the  act  or 
resolve  shall  become  null  and  void.  If  a  referendum  petition 
be  filed  against  an  emergency  measure,  such  measure  shall 
be  law  until  it  is  voted  upon  by  the  voters,  and  if  it  is  then 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  29 

rejected'  by  a  majority  of  the  voters  voting  tliereon,  such 
measure  shall  be  thereby  repealed. 

The  General  Court  may^  by  majority  yea  and  nay,  vote  in 
each  branch,  refer  any  act  or  resolve  to  the  voters  of  the  state, 
or  any  act  or  resolve  affecting  any  locality  to  the  voters  of 
that  locality,  to  be  voted  upon  at  any  regula-r  or  special 
election,  and  such  act  or  resolve  shall  become  law  in  thirty 
days  after  having  been  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  voters 
voting  thereon;  otherwise,  it  shall  be  null  and  void. 

In  case  an  act  or  resolve  proposed  in  the  General  Court 
fails  to  be  passed  by  that  General  Court,  then  on  petition 
of  the  number  of  voters  last  above  st-ated,  and  filed  with  the 
Secretary  of  State  not  less  than  four  months  previous  to  the 
next  ensuing  state  election,  said  act  or  resolve  in  its  original 
form  or  in  such  amended  form  proposed  in  the  General  Court 
as  may  be  petitioned  for  by  such  petitioners  shall  be  submit- 
ted to  the  voters  at  the  next  ensuing  state  election,  and  shall 
take  effect  if  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon  is  in  the' 
affirmative ;  otherwise  it  shall  not  take  eif ect.  If  accepted  by 
the  voters,  such  measure  shall  become  law  in  thirty  days  after 
the  said  state  election. 

The  full  text  of  a  measure  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people 
under  this  article  of  the  Constitution  need  not  be  printed  on 
the  official  ballots,  but  until  otherwise  provided  by  law  the 
Secretary  of  State  shall  prepare  the  ballots  in  such  form  as 
to  present  the  measure  or  measures  concisely  and  intelligibly. 

The  veto  power  of  the  Governor  shall  not  extend  to  any 
measures  accepted  by  vote  of  the  people  under  this  article 
of  the  Constitution. 

If  conflicting  measures  submitted  to  the  voters  shall  be 
approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  severally  cast  thereon, 
the  measure  receiving  the  highest  number  of  affirmative 
votes  shall  become  law  as  to  all  conflicting  provisions. 

The  Secretary  of  State  shall  print  and  distribute  to  each 
voter  in  the  state  entitled  to  vote  on  the  measures  to  be 
submitted,  not  less  than  two  months  previous  to  the  time  of 
voting,  a  pamphlet  containing  the  titles  of  the  measures  to 
be  voted  upon  as  they  will  appear  upon  the  official  ballot, 


30      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

together  with  the  full  text  of  the  measures  to  be  submitted; 
and  the  General  Court  shall  enact  legislation  for  ca-rrying 
this  article  of  the  Constitution  into  effect;  but  until  such 
legislation  shall  be  enacted  this  article  shall  be  self-execut- 
ing, and  the  Secretary  of  State  and  all  other  officers  shall  be 
guided  by  these  articles  and  the  general  laws. 

Re-number  Article  6,  making  it  Article  7,  and  likewise  re- 
number all  succeeding  articles  of  Part  Second  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Strike  out  Articles  97,  98  and  99  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution  as  it  now  stands,  and  insert  in  place  thereof  the 
following: 

Art.  97.  The  General  Court  may,  by  majority,  yea  and 
nay  vote  of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  branch,  in  two 
consecutive  legislatures,  subiliit  to  the  voters  amendments  to 
this  Constitution,  which  shall  take  effect  when  approved  by 
a  majority  of  the  voters  voting  thereon,  and  not  otherwise. 

Art.  98.  Any  amendment  to  this  Constitution,  proposed 
by  petition  of  not  less  than  eight  thousand  qualified  voters 
of  the  state,  and  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State  not  less 
than  four  months  previous  to  any  state  election,  shall  be 
submitted  to  the  voters  of  the  state  at  that  election  in  the 
same  manner  as  amendments  proposed  by  the  General  Court, 
and  shall  take  effect  when  approved  by  a  majority  of  the 
voters  voting  thereon,  and  not  otherwise. 

Art.  99.  All  alterations  and  amendments  to  this  Con- 
stitution shall  take  effect  thirty  days  after  having  been  ap- 
proved by  a  majority  of  the  voters  voting  thereon,  and  not 
otherwise,  the  Secretary  of  State  ha\ing  in  the  meantime 
canvassed  the  returns  of  the  voting  thereon,  and  having  certi- 
fied the  Tesislts  thereof. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Dimcan  of  Jaffrey,  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table,  ordered  to  be  printed,  then  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  and  made  a  special  order  for 
Wednesday  morning,  June  12,  at  10.35  o'clock. 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  31 

Mr.  Corning  of  Concord. — I  rise  really  for  a  parliamentary 
inquiry.  I  have  never  been  in  a  Constitutional  Convention  be- 
fore as  a  member.  I  presume  there  are  many  here  like  myself, 
lacking-  that  education  and  experience.  What  I  wish  to  inquire 
about  is  this:  Of  course  in  my  mind  all  the  time  is  the  simi- 
larity of  action  betw^een  this  Convention  and  our  legislature. 
What  I  w^ant  to  know  is,  wrhat  are  the  committees  appointed 
by  the  chair  later  on,  to  do?  Are  they  to  consider  these  ques- 
tions, or  are  they  to  be  brought  in  without  any  consideration 
at  all  and  talked  here  off  and  on  three  or  four  hours. 

The  Pr€sid}ent. — The  chair  will  state  his  understanding  of  the 
rules  to  be  as  follows:  Under  the  rules  all  proposed  amend- 
ments g-o  at  once  to  one  of  the  standing-  committees  unless 
otherwise  ordered  by  the  Convention.  Most  of  these  amend- 
ments would  be  referred  back  by  the  standing-  commiitee  for 
discussion  in  a  full  Convention.  Under  the  interpretation  of 
the  rules  in  the  Convention  of  1902,  it  was  found  to  be  very 
desirable  that  such  discussion  should  take  place  in  the  Coanmit- 
tee  of  the  Whole  rather  than  in  the  Convention  itself.  So  then, 
these  amendments  today  would  have  been  referred,  under  the 
rules,  to  one  of  the  standing-  committees,  if  there  had  not  been 
motions  made  by  the  proposers  to  have  them  referred  to  the 
Committee   of  the  Whole. 

The  idea  is,  in  the  Committee  oi  the  Whole  there  is  no  yea 
and  nay  vote,  and  the  number  of  times  that  a  man  can  speak 
upon  a  measure  is  not  limited,  and  there  is  a  chance  for  full 
and  free  debate.  Then  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  which  is 
really  the  Convention  sitting-  with  a  different  presiding-  of- 
ficer,— ^a  man  called  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  instead  of 
President  of  the  Convention, — can  decide  whether  the  subject 
matter  which  they  have  under  consideration  is  something- 
they  want  to  support  or  oppose.  If  it  is  something  that 
the  full  membership,  having-  discussed  it  in  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  decide  that  they  do  not  want  it  to  g-oi  any  further, 
then  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  recomniends  back  to  the 
Convention  the  defeat  of  the  measure.  If  it  is  something  which 
they  think  should  g-oi  forward,  then  it  is  referred  back  to  the 
Convention,  usually  with  the  recommendation  that  it  go  to 
the  proper  standing  committee,  who  will  then  consider  it,  in  the 
light  of  the  fact  that  the  Convention  has  favored  it  in  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  with  the  idea  of  putting-  it  in  the  proper 
shape,  so  when  it  comes  back  from  that  committee  it  can 
come  back  in  proper  shape  with  the  recora.mendatio'n  of  botli 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  the   Standing  Committee. 


32      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

That  is  the  way  thing's  worked  in  the  last  Convention,  and, 
after  the  first  day  or  two,  things  worked  very  nicely,  and  it 
seems  to  the  Chair  it  is  desirable  that  in  this  Comvention  all 
these  proposed  amendments  should  be  taken  up  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  Convention  and  discussed  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
The  Committee  of  the  Whole  will  doubtless  decide  quickly,  one 
waj'  or  the  other,  and  we  shall  make  more  prog-ress  than  if  they 
are  all  sent  in  the  first  instance  to  some  standing-  committee 
and  then  come  back  with  a  report  from  it,  and  then  go  to  the 
Committee  of  the   Whole  for  discussion. 

Does  that  make  it  clear? 

Mr.  Corninf)  of  Concord. — Yes,  ^Ir.  President. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

RESOI.UTION  No.    5. 

Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest  Land  and  Money 
at  Interest. 

Resolved,  That  Article  5,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  inserting  in  the  22nd  line  of  said  article  after 
the  words  "and  upon  all  the  estates  within  the  same"  the 
following,  "except  wild  and  forest  lands  and  money  at  inter- 
est which  may  be  specially  assessed  and  rated,"  so  that  the 
article  as  amended  shall  read  in  part  as  follows: 

"Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are 
hereby  given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court,  from 
time  to  time  ...  to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and 
reasonable  assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of,  and  residents  within,  the  said  state  and  upon  all  the 
estates  within  the  same  except  wild  and  forest  lands  and 
money  at  interest  which  may  be  specially  assessed  and  rated.'' 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  that  the  resolution  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 

Question  being  on  the  motion, — 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — It  seems  to  me  from  your  in- 
terpretation of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  that  this  is  a 
question  on  which  undoubtedly  there  will  be  some  discussion; 
or  there   will   be   evidence   offered   bv   the   Tax   Commission   or 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  33 

soime  other  parties  interested,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  matter 
should,  in  the  first  instance,  gro  to  the  Committee  on  Taxation, 
or  some  other  appropriate  committee  for  their  consideration 
before  it  goes  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Your  Honor's 
interpretation  has  reversed  the  ordinary  rules  of  Committee  of 
thie  Whole  -with  which  I  have  had  some  familiarity,  where 
everything-  is  referred  to  a  standing  committee  and  they  re- 
port and  it  is  then  put  in  the  general  order  and  goes  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  where  all  amendments  may  be  made 
to  be  reported  back  to  the  house.  Then  when  it  is  reported 
back  to  the  house  it  seems  to  me  it  is  rehearsing  the  matter 
to  then  refer  it  to  one  of  the  standing  committees  for  their 
consideration.  It  seems  to  me  this  matter  of  taxation  is  one 
of  the  most  important  tilings  coming  before  this  Convention 
and,  if  there  are  to  be  any  hearings  upon  it  to  which  outsiders 
or  any  others  interested  may  wish  to  be  present,  these  hear- 
ings should  be  had  before  the  standing  committee. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  moved  to  amend  by  referring 
to  the  appropriate  standing  committee  when  appointed. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Cmicord. — Mr.  President,  I  think  what  the  gen- 
tleman from  Manchester  desires  will  be  more  readily  accom- 
plished by  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Tilton  to  refer 
this  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  than  in  any  other  way. 
The  fact  is  that  when  it  is  befoire  the  Committee  of  tlie  W^hole, 
every  member  has  the  information  that  would  come  on  a  hear- 
ing before  a  standing  committee.  You  refer  this  to  a  standing 
committee  and  that  committee  has  got  to  come  in  here  and 
give  you  all  the  information  it  has  received.  We  have  found, 
from  the  experience  of  previous  Conventions,  that  by  referring 
these  matters  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  every  member  is 
informed  of  what  a  special  committee  would  be  informed,  and 
that,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  time  is  saved  thereby.  It 
was  the  experience  in  the  Convention  of  1876,  of  which  I  was  a 
member,  and  also  of  1902,  "^that  this  is  the  most  s-^tisfactory 
way  of  giving  every  man  all  the  information  that  a  special 
committee  would  have,  at  first  hand.  I  hope  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Tilton  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  withdrew  his  amendment. 
Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton.— 


34      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Wason  of  ISTashua  offered  the  following  amendment: 

That  the  resolution  be  laid  on  the  table  to  be  printed  be- 
fore reference. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  was  adopted, 

The  question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton, 
as  amendeid-,  on  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin, — 

Resolved,  That  all  amendments  previously  introduced  and 
all  amendments  subsequently  introduced  be  laid  on  the  table 
and  printed  before  reference  'to  Committees. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Kesolution  No.  6. 

Relating  to  Grading  of  Inheritance  Taxes  and  Exemptions. 

R-esolved,  That  Article  6,  Part  Second^  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  said  article  the  follow- 
ing: "Taxes  assessed  upon  the  passing  of  property  by  will  or 
inheritance  or  in  contemplation  of  death  may  be  uniformly 
graded  and  rated  in  accordance  with  the  amount  of  property 
passing,  and  with  the  degree  of  relationship  between  the 
donee,  heir-at-law  or  legatee  and  the  person  from  whom  it 
passes^  and  reasonable  exemptions  may  be  made." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Resolution  No.  7. 

Rdating  to  Female  Suffrage. 

Resolved,  That  the  word  "male"  be  stricken  from  Article 
27,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution. 


Wednesday,  June  5,  1912.  35 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Naslrna,  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resolution  No.  8. 

Eelating  to   the  Election  of  Certain  Officers. 

Resolved,  That  Article  &&  of  the  Constitution  be  amended 
by  striking  out  in  the  first  line  the  words  secretary,  treasurer, 
so  the  same  shall  read: 

Art.  &Q.  The  secretary,  treasurer,  attorney-general,  and 
auditor  shall  be  biennially  elected  by  ballot,  by  plurality 
vote,  and  a  commissary-general  shall  be  chosen  by  joint  bal- 
lot of  the  senators  and  representatives  assembled  in  one 
room. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resolution  No.  9. 

Relating  to  the  Tenure  of  Office  of  Certain  Officers. 

Resolved,  That  Article  74  of  the  Constitution  be  amended 
by  inserting  after  the  word  "any"  in  the  second  line  the 
words  "justice  and  associate  justice  of  police  courts/'  so  that 
the  article  shall  read: 

In  order  that  the  people  may  not  suffer  from  the  long 
continuance  in  place  of  any  justice  or  associate  justice  of  the 
police  court,  and  any  justice  of  the  peace,  who  shall  fail  in 
discharging  the  important  duties  of  their  office  with  ability 
and  fidelity,  all  commissions  of  justices  and  associate  justices 
of  police  courts  and  justices  of  the  peace  shall  become  void 
at  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  their  respective  dates; 
and  upon  the  expiration  of  any  commission,  the  same  may, 


36      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

if  necessary,  be  renewed  or  another  person  appointed,  as  shall 
most  conduce  to  the  well-being  of  the  state. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester^  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution  and 
moved  its  adoption: 

Kesoltttton  Adopted  by  the  Contention  on  the  Deatih 
lOF  THE  Hon.  Heinut  M.  Baker,  Deilegate  from  the 
Town  of  Bow. 

On  the  eve  of  the  assembling  of  this  Convention  death  has 
removed  one  of  its  distinguished  members.  A  son  of  New 
Hampshire,  the  Hon.  Henry  M.  Baker  of  Bow  was  ardently 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  his  native  state.  As  a  member  of 
the  legislature,  a  state  senator,  a  member  of  the  Constitu- 
tional Convention  of  1902,  and  as  a  congressman,  his  pub- 
lic service  was  patriotic  and  honorable.  As  a  citizen,  his  life 
was  helpful  to  his  fellowmen,  every  worthy  cause  enlisting  his 
earnest  support.     Be  it  therefore 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  delegates  of  New  Hampshire  in 
Convention  assembled,  here  express  the  sorrow  of  the  state 
at  the  loss  she  has  sustained  by  the  death  of  a  son  who  con- 
tributed his  share  to  her  fame  in  the  service  he  rendered,  both 
as  a-  public  servant  and  as  a  private  citizen,  and  that  we 
spread  upon  our  records  this,  our  testimonial  to  his  memory. 

Mr.  Young  of  Laconia  offered  the  following  amendment: 

That  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  sent  to  the  family. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Question  being  on  the  resolution  as  amended, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  resolution  was  unanimously 
adopted. 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  37 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  5  o^clock  as  a  further  mark  of  respect  to  the 
memory  of  the  late  Hon.  Henry  M.  Baker  of  Bow. 

THURSDAY,  June  6,  1912. 
The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  the  Eev.  Charles  C. 
Garland  of  Concord. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  the  rules  were  so 
far  suspended  that  the  reading  of  the  Journal  was  dispensed) 
with. 

Miss  Lizzie  H.  Sanborn  of  Laconia  appeared  and  qualified 
as  official  stenographer  before  the  President  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill, — 

Resolved,  That  the  New  Hampshire  Direct  Legislation 
League  be  granted  the  use  of  Representatives'  Hall  next 
Tuesday  evening,  June  11,  for  a  public  meeting. 

The  President,  in  accordance  with  a  resolution  previously 
adopted,  appointed  the  following  pages: 

Morris  P.  Smith  of  Meredith. 

John  M.  Shirley  of  Franklin. 

Fred  Rushlow  of  Concord. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following 
resolution: 

•  RESOI.UTION  No.  10. 

Relating  to  Voting  Precincts. 

Resolved,  That  the  legislature  shall  have  full  power  and 
authority  to  establish  more  than  one  place  of  public  meet- 


38      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ing  within  the  limits  of  any  town  or  ward  in  the  state  for 
the  casting,  counting,  declaring  and  returning  of  "votes,  and 
the  election  of  officers  under  the  Constitution;  to  prescribe 
the  manner  of  warning,  holding  and  conducting  such  meet- 
ings, and  for  that  purpose  may  divide  any  town  or  ward  into 
voting  precincts. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following 
resolution: 

Resoolution  No.  11. 

Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  the  state  be  amended  as 
follows: 

Amend  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  by  striking  out 
Articles  98  and  99  of  the  same,  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof 
the  following: 

Art.  98.  Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  Con- 
stitution may  be  proposed  in  either  branch  of  the  legislature; 
and  if  the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  each  of  the  two  branches,  such  proposed 
amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  entered  on  their  journals, 
with  the  yeas  and  nays  taken  thereon,  and  referred  to  the 
legislature  to  be  chosen  at  the  next  general  election,  and 
shall  be  published  in  some  newspaper  in  each  county  of  the 
state  for  three  months  previous  to  the  time  of  holding  such 
election;  and  if,  in  the  legislature  so  next  chosen,  such 
proposed  amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  by 
a  majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  branch,  then  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  submit  such  proposed 
amendment  or  amendments  to  the  people,  in  such  manner, 
and  at  such  time,  as  the  legislature  shall  prescribe;  and  if  the 
people  ghall  approve  and  ratify  such  amendment  or  amend- 
ments, or  any  of  such  amendments,  by  vote  of  at  least  two 
thirds  of  the  electors  voting  thereon,  such  amendment  or 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  89 

amendments  so  approved  and  ratified  shall  become  part  of 
the  Constitution;  provided,  that  if  more  than  one  amendment 
be  submitted  at  the  same  time,  they  shall  be  submitted  in 
such  manner  that  the  people  may  vote  for  or  against  such 
amendments  separately. 

Akt.  99.  If  at  any  time  a  majority  of  the  Senate  and 
House  shall  deem  it  necessary  to  call  a  convention  to  revise 
or  change  this  Constitution,  they  shall  recommend  to  the 
electors  to  vote  for  or  against  a  convention  at  the  next  gen- 
eral election  for  members  of  the  legislature.  And  if  it  shall 
appear  that  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon  have 
voted  for  a  convention,  the  legislature  shall,  at  its  next  ses- 
sion, provide  for  calling  such  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  the  resolu- 
tion was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Resolution  No.  12. 

Eelating  to  the  Jurisdiction  of  Justices  of  the  Peace. 

Resolved,  That  Article  76,  Part  Two,  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  the  addition  of  the  following  words,  "and  the 
General  Court  are  further  empowered  to  give  to  police  courts 
original  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to  right 
of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury  of  criminal  causes  wherein  the 
punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison,^' 
so  that  when  amended  said  section  shall  read: 

The  General  Court  are  empowered  to  give  to  justices  of 
the  peace  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes,  when  the  damages  de- 
manded shall  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  and  title  of 
real  estate  is  not  concerned,  but  with  the  right  of  appeal  to 
either  party  to  some  other  court.  And  the  General  Court 
are  further  empowered  to  give  to  police  courts  original  juris- 
diction to  try  and  determine,  subject  to  right  of  appeal  and 
trial  by  jury,  all  criminal  causes  wherein  the  punishment  is 
less  than  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison. 


40      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Ressolution  No.  13. 

Eelating  to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  shall  be  amended  by  strik- 
ing out  what  is  now  Section  9  of  the  second  part  and  substi- 
tuting as  that  Section  9  the  following: 

The  House  of  Eepresentatives  shall  consist  of  three  hun- 
dred members,  which  shall  be  apportioned  by  the  legislature, 
at  the  first  session  after  a  United  States  census,  to  the  sev- 
eral counties  of  the  state,  equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  accord- 
ing to  their  population  as  ascertained  at  the  next  preceding 
United  States  census.  The  county  commissioners  in  each 
county — or  in  lieu  of  the  county  commissioners  in  each 
county,  such  board  of  special  commissioners  in  each  county, 
to  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the  county,  as  may  for  that 
purpose  be  provided  by  law — shall  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
June  next  after  each  assignment  of  representatives  to  each 
county  assemble  at  a  shire  town  of  their  respective  counties, 
and  proceed,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  divide  the  same  into  rep- 
resentative districts  of  contiguous  territory,  so  as  to  appor- 
tion the  representatives  assigned  to  each  county,  equally,  as 
nearly  as  may  be,  according  to  the  relative  population  in  the 
several  districts  of  each  county,  and  such  districts  shall  be 
so  formed  that  no  town  or  ward  shall  be  divided  therefor. 
Districts  may  be  formed  for  one  or  more  representatives  as 
the  contiguity  of  territory  or  the  physical  and  social  relations 
of  the  towns  or  wards  may  warrant.  The  legislature  at  the 
next  session  after  such  division  of  the  counties  into  repre- 
sentative districts  may,  upon  appeal  by  a  town  or  ward,  ex- 
amine the  classification  of  that  town  or  w^ard,  and  change  the 
district  lines  of  that  county  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  this  article  if  it  shall  appear  that  injustice  has  been  done. 


Thuksday,  June  6,  1912.  41 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Manchester,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Newell  of  Surry  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Reisolution"  No.  14. 

Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Resolved,  That  Part  Second^  Article  Nine^  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "six  hundred" 
and  inserting  in  the  place  thereof  the  words  "eight  hundred/' 
and  striking  out  the  words  eighteen,  and  inserting  in  the  place 
thereof  the  words  twenty-eight  hundred;  also  by  striking  out 
the  words  "twelve  hundred"  and  inserting  in  the  place 
thereof  the  words  "two  thousand,"  so  that  the  amended  sec- 
tion shall  read: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  the  principles  of  equality^  and^  in  order  that  such  rep- 
resentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit, 
every  town  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges  and  wards  of 
cities  having  eight_hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general 
census  of  the  state,  taken  by  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  or  of  this  state^  may  elect  one  representative;  if 
^-^^^-y-'^ight  ^^ii-nrlrpfl  gnpV|  iphflhitflTits.  may  elect  two  rep- 
resentatives, and  so  proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making 
two  thousand  such  inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  num- 
ber for  any  additional  representative;  provided,  that  no  town 
shall  be  divided  or  the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city 
so  altered  as  to  increase  the  number  of  representatives  to 
which  such  town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preced- 
ing census;  and  provided  further,  that  to  those  towns  and 
cities  which  since  the  last  census  have  been  divided  or  had 
their  boundaries  or  ward  lines  changed,  the  General  Court 
in  session  next  before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect 
shall  equitably  apportion  the  representation  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  number  shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been 
had  no  such  division  or  alteration  been  made. 


42      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolved,  That  Article  11,  Part  Second,  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "six  hundred" 
and  inserting  in  the  place  thereof  the  words  "eight  hun- 
dred," so  that  it  shall  read  as  follows:  Whenever  any  town  or 
city  ward  shall  have  less  than  eight  hundred  such  inhabi- 
tants^ the  General  Court  shall  authorize  such  town,  place, 
or  ward  to  elect  and  send  to  the  General  Court  a  repre- 
sentative such  proportionate  part  of  the  time  as  the  number 
of  its  inhabitants  bear  to  eight  hundred,  but  the  General 
Court  shall  not  authorize  any  such  town,  or  place,  or  ward 
to  elect  and  send  such  representative,  except  as  herein  pro- 
vided. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Newell  of  Surr}-,  the  resolution  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Newell  of  Surry  also  submitted  certain  statistics  and 
tables,  explanatory  of  Eesolution  No.  14,  which,  on  motion 
of  the  same  gentleman,  were  laid  on  the  table  to  be  printed 
and  then  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Winch  of  Langdon  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

EjesoltjtiO'N  No.  15. 

Eelating  to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 

Resolved,  That  Article  9  of  Part  Second  be  amended  begin- 
ning after  the  words  in  the  fifth  line,  "and  wards  of  cities," 
shall  elect  one  representative  for  the  term  of  two  years;  so 
that  said  Section  9  shall  read  as  follows: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a 
representation  of  the  people  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cit- 
ies, shall  elect  one  representative  for  the  term  of  two  years, 
provided  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the  boundaries  of 
the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  increase  the  number 


TiiuKSDAY,  June  6,  1912.  43 

of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or  city  may  be  entitled, 
and  provided  further,  that  those  towns  which  may  become 
cities  and  divided  into  wards  in  the  future,  each  ward  so 
formed  shall  be  entitled  to  elect  one  representative  at  the 
next  biennial  election  following  such  formation. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Winch  of  Langdon,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Hbsioltjtion  ISTo.  16. 

Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking 
out  Articles  98  and  99  of  Part  Second  and  inserting  in  lieu 
thereof  the  following: 

Art.  98.  Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  Consti- 
tution may  be  proposed  in  either  branch  of  the  legislature; 
and  if  the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the 
members  elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses,  such  proposed 
amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  entered  in  their  journals, 
with  the  yeas  and  nays  taken  thereon,  and  referred  to  the 
legislature  at  the  next  general  election,  and  shall  be  pub- 
lished in  some  newspaper  in  each  county  of  the  state  for 
three  months  previous  to  the  time  of  holding  such  election; 
and  if,  in  the  legislature  so  next  chosen,  such  proposed 
amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  major- 
ity of  all  members  elected  to  each  house,  then  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  submit  such  proposed  amend- 
ment or  amendments  to  the  people,  in  such  manner,  and  at 
such  time,  as  the  legislature  shall  prescribe ;  and  if  the  people 
shall  approve  and  ratify  such  amendment  or  amendments  by 
a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon,  such  amendment 
or  amendments  shall  become  part  of  the  Constitution;  pro- 
vided,  that  if  more  than  one  amendment  be  submitted  at  the 
same  time,  they  shall  be  submitted  in  such  manner  that  the 
people  may  vote  for  or  against  such  amendments  separately. 


44        Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Art.  99.  If  at  any  time  a  majority  of  the  Senate  and 
House  shall  deem  it  necessary  to  call  a  Convention  to  revise 
or  change  this  Constitution^  they  shall  recommend  to  the 
electors  to  vote  for  or  against  a  Convention  at  the  next  elec- 
tion for  the  members  of  the  legislature.  And  if  it  shall  ap- 
pear that  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon  have 
voted  for  a  Convention^  the  legislature  shall,  at  its  next  ses- 
sion, provide  for  calling  such  Convention;  but  no  alteration 
shall  be  made  in  this  Constitution  before  the  same  shall  be 
laid  before  the  towns  and  unincorporated  places  and  ap- 
proved by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  present  and  vot- 
ing on  the  subject. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

EjjaoLunoN  No.  17. 

Eelating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolved,  That  Article  24,  Part  Two,  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "twenty-four^'  and  in- 
serting in  the  place  thereof  the  words  "thirty-one/'  so  that 
the  same  shall  read: 

The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-one  members,  who  shall 
hold  their  office  for  two  years,  from  the  first  Wednesday  of 
January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

And  that  Article  25,  Part  Two,  be  amended  by  striking 
from  the  third  line  the  words  "twenty-four"  and  inserting 
in  place  thereof  the  words  "thirty-one." 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

EePORT     /OP     OOMIMITTEIB     ON      PETITION     OP     PaTEIOK      E. 

Gkipfin. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter,  for  the  special  committee  to  whom 
was  referred  the  petition  of  Patrick  'E.  Griffin,  claiming  a 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  45 

seat  in  this  Convention  as  a  delegate  from  Walpole,  and  con- 
testing the  right  of  Daniel  W.  Connors  to  such  seat,  report 
said  petition  with  the  following  recommendation: 

That  the  petitioner  have  leave  to  withdraw,  and  that  said 
Daniel  W.  Connors  be  declared  a  duly  qualified  member  of 
this  Convention,  legally  elected  as  a  delegate  from  Walpole, 
and  be  seated  accordingly. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord^  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  Reso- 
lution No.  5^  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest  Land 
and  Money  at  Interest. 

Ik  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.Wason  of  Nashua  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  would  like  to  ask  the  g-entleman 
from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Tax  Com- 
mission, to  explain  to  the  members  of  the  Committee,  the  scope 
of  his  proposed  amendment.  I  think  it  is  something"  in  which 
we  are  all  interested. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — Those  few  words  in  two  lines  tell  the 
story  a  good  deal  better  than  anybody  can  tell  it  by  standing 
up  here  and  talking  several  hours.  It  is  so  near  the  first  of 
April  that  any  of  you  who  may  have  been  unfortunate  enoug-h 
to  hold  bonds  know  what  taxation  of  intangibles  means.  If 
you  are  honest,  if  you  had  not  bought  stock  and  sworn  off 
your  bonds  against  your  indebtedness,  you  will  be  called  upon 
to  pay  on  a  bond  from  which  you  are  receiving  four  percent  or 
three  and  one-half  percent,  from  one  to  two  percent,  or  from 
one-quarter  to  one-half,  and  perhaps  a  larger  proportion  of  the 
income  you  receive  from  that  bond.  You  will  be  obliged  to  do 
that  so  long  as  the  legislature  takes  the  position  that  it  does 
under  the  Constitution  as  it  is  now.  In  o'ther  words,  if  the 
legislature  leaves  bonds,  or  money  at  interest  taxable,  they 
must  be  taxed  a;t  their  full  value;  that  is,  at  the  value  for 
which  they  will  sell  in  the  market,  which  is  usu^ally  the  par 
value — may  be  more,  may  be  a  little  less.  The  legislature 
cannot  step  in  and    say  that  from  the  forty  dollars   you  may 


46      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

receive  as  an  income,  you  may  pay  five  dollars  for  instance — 
which  most  of  u.s  might  be  willing-  to  do — but  says  yo"u  must 
pay  fifteen  or  twentj^  or  twenty-five  dollars  of  your  forty  dol- 
lars. Now,  personally,  I  do  not  believe  that  money  at  interest 
should  be  taxed  at  all,  because  it  is  double  taxation.  Tlie  legis- 
lature, however,  has  not  taken  kindly  to  that  view  all  the  years 
since  money  has  been  taxed.  While  the  legislature  remains  in 
the  same  frame  of  mind,  it  seems  better  to  most  people  that 
it  may  be  able,  if  it  cares  to,  to  classify  credits,  or  put  a  low 
fixed  tax  on  them  in  the  same  way  the  savings  bank  deposits 
are  taxed, — which,  undoubtedly,  is  now  unconstitutional, — but 
about  which  no  question  will  be  raised  by  any  sensible  person 
in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 

In  the  Tax  Commiission  report  this  year,  which  was  written 
last  fall,  there  was  a  suggestion  that  this  evil  might  be  cured 
by  putting  in  the  word  "uniform,"  in  place  of  the  word  "pro- 
portional," in  Article  5  of  Part  Second.  The  thought  had  not 
been  carried  far  enough  at  that  time  to  show  what  might 
happen  if  that  change  was  made.  In  other  words,  all  property 
could  be  classified,  if  the  legislature  saw  fit.  The  timberm.an 
oo'uld  come  to  the  legislature,  the  groceryman  could  come,  the 
farmer  could  come, — the  farmer  would  most  certainly  come, — 
everybody  would  come  and  say,  "Let  my  particular  class  of 
property  go  in  at  some  different  rate  from  other  classes  of 
property,"  and  you  would  have  the  door  wide  open  for  the 
classification  of  all  kinds  of  property,  which  I  do  not  believe 
ought  to  be  the  case  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  Now, 
many  people  do  think  all  restrictions  should  be  taken  away 
from  the  legislature  so  far  as  taxation  is  concerned.  I  do  not 
believe  tliat  is  right.  If  all  constitutional  restrictions  were 
removed,  you  would  know  after  one  legislatur«  had  ended  what 
the  law  would  be  for  two  years,  but  you  could  not  tell  what  it 
was  going  to  be  after  the  session  of  the  nex't  legislature.  It 
does  not  seem  to  me  it  is  time  now  to  take  away  all  constitu- 
tional restrictions,  so  far  as  taxation  is  concerned.  There  are 
these  two  classes  of  property  which  some  people  thmk  ought 
to  be  taxed  in  some  way.  A  piece  of  paper  is  not  property, 
it  represents  property,  it  is  called  property  by  some  people, — 
and  they  think  it  ought  to  be  taxed,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
having  this  done  this  amendment  is  suggested.  Now,  for 
pieces  of  paper  and  for  the  forests  of  our  state  this  amendment 
is  suggested.  In  other  words,  the  statute  will  read  that  every- 
thing shall  be  rated  proportionally  down  to  this  point.  If  we 
put  in  this  exception,  which  relates  to  credits   which  may  be 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  47 

specially  assessed  and  rated,  and  growing-  wood  and  timber, 
•then  the  legislature  has  a  right  to  do  as  it  wants  to  with  these 
two  classes  of  property,  or  so-called  property,  and  the  door  is 
still  closed  against  the  corporation,  against  the  railroads, 
against  the  storekeeper,  and  everybody  else  coming  in  and  ask- 
ing to  have  a  special  assessment  or  rating  made  on  his 
property.  This  seems  to  me  is  broad  enough  to  accomplish 
what  is  wanted,  and  leaves  things  as  they  are  with  regard  to 
everything  else. 

It  may  be  suggested, — ^why  not  have  it  so  you  can  tax  stock 
in  corporations,  foreign  corporations?  You  can,  if  you  want 
to  do  that,  a  thing  which  they  do  in  Massachusetts  and  some 
other  states,  purely  for  a  selfish  purpose.  In  Massachusetts 
they  tax  the  stock  of  foreign  corporations,  and  confessedly  to 
make  people  invest  their  money  in  domestic  corporations.  You 
can  see  how  unfairly  it  has  worked  in  New  Hampshire,  and  see 
the  reason  why  the  Amoskeag  corporation  has  done  as  it  has 
done.  The  larger  part  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  Amoskeag 
corporation  was  held  by  Massachusetts  people.  Massachilsetts 
people  were  sending  their  money  up  here, — without  the  Massa- 
chusetts peiople  and  without  the  money  from  there  it  is  doubt- 
ful w^hether  that  corporation  could  go  along,  or  any  other  cor- 
poration where  a  large  amount  of  money  is  required.  What 
did  they  do  ?  The  men  that  lo wned  stock  in  Massachusetts  were 
taxed  on  the  stock;  and  this  state  taxed  the  property  of  the 
corporation  here.  It  does  not  seem  that  New  Hampshire  is 
going  to  hold  out  that  kind  of  an  invitation  to  people  who  come 
in  from  abroad  and  want  to  take  up  a  permanent  residence 
here.  Say  to  them  this, — "You  come  to  New  Hampshire,  we  are 
advertising  our  scenery  and  we  are  spending  money  for  our 
roads,  to  get  you  here,  but  after  you  are  here  we  not  only  will 
tax  you  on  the  tangible  property  you  have  here,  but  we  will 
take  a  portion,  smaller  or  larger,  of  the  income  which  you 
derive  from  property  elsewhere,  for  the  privilege  of  living 
here."  That  is  not  the  kind  of  invitation  we  want  to  send  out 
to  people  to  come  here,  and  it  does  not  seem  for  that  reason 
alone  we  ought  to  tax  foreign  stock.  In  other  words,  if  the 
gentlemen  in  this  hall  were  each  to  put  in  $100  or  $1000  and 
form  a  corporation  to  build  a  large  plant,  or  a  mill,  all  of  tha,t 
property  is  taxed.  Now,  why  should  we  go  down  into  our 
pockets  and,  after  paying  taxes  on  our  property,  pay  the  tax 
on  the  corporate  stock  in  addition? 

It  was  in  1833,  I  think,  the  New  Hampshire  legislature  passed 
a  law  which  changed  the  method  of  taxing  property.     In  other 


48      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention, 

words,  it  made  property  taxable  at  its  value  as  is  done  today, 
also  stock  in  corporations,  and,  lof  course,  some  selectmen  at- 
tempted to  tax  corporate  stock,  but  the  court  said  that  was  not 
only  double  taxation,  but  was  unjust  and  oppressive  as  well  as 
being-  unconstitutional.  It  would  be  just  as  unjust  and  op- 
pressive to  put  into  the  amendment  here  anything"  which  would 
allow  the  taxation  of  stock  of  corporations.  Therefore,  the 
words  I  have  used  here  are  "money  at  interest," — that  would 
take  bonds,  that  would  take  all  classes  of  loans,  or  bills  receiv- 
able from  which  anybody  derives  interest,  but  would  not  include 
the  stock  of  corporations. 

Mr.  Duvis  of  New  Ipswich. — It  seemis  to  me  this  particular 
amendment  is  wrong  in  two  instances.  So  far  as  I  am  able  to 
decide  it  is  in  a  way  cruelty  to  animals  and  a  hardship  to  men. 
Taxation  has  a  tendency  to  destroy  the  thing  taxed,  if  it  is 
possible  for  it  to  do  so.  Exemption  benefits  and  improves. 
Now  I  will  ask  you,  if  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  for  us  to  improve 
wild  land  in  this  way, — ask  you  if  it  is  wise  for  us  to  encour- 
age idleness,  and  put  a  penalty  upon  thrift,  ambition,  and  in- 
dustry? It  seems  to  me  that  when  we  in  any  way  exempt  wild 
lands,  we  are  saying  to  the  farmer,  the  agriculturist,  and  all 
others  who  take  off  their  coats,  gird  up  their  loins,  and  go  into 
the  wild  lands  to  redeem  them  and  make  them  productive, 
bountiful  and  advantageous  to  state  and  community,  as  reward 
of  merit  for  your  labor  pay  us  more  tax.  It  seems  to  me  that 
we  are  gravely  in  error  when  we  put  such  a  penalty  upon  men 
who  have  so  labored.  (Sturely  if  we  take  the  tax  from  some 
things,  stocks,  money  at  interest,  etc.,  lands  and  various  other 
commodities  must  bear  the  burden,  for  taxation  is  an  exact 
balance.  What  we  take  off  from  oee,  we  must  put  on  to  an- 
other. Just  a  few  thoughts  for  your  consideration.  Thank 
you. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord. — 'Gentlemen,  being  engaged  in  the 
rate  hearing  before  the  Public  Service  Commission,  and  hap- 
pening to  have  a  recess  at  this  time,  I  came  in  to  find  a  subject 
under  discussion  in  which  it  happens  I  have  a  large  interest,  not 
a  personal  interest,  but  an  interest  on  behalf  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire: — That  is,  some  method  of  taxation  of  growing 
timber  lands,  which  will  enable  the  owner  of  those  lands  to 
hold  them  until  the  timber  grows  up  large  enougti  to  cut. 

I  think  the  last  speaker  perhaps  misapprehended  the  inten- 
tion of  this  amendment,  which  would  permit  a  special  method 
of  taxing  wild  lands  and  timber  lands,  rather  than  exempting 
them  entirely  from  taxation.  It  is  by  no  means  surprising  that 
one  shoum  see  in  any  amendment  proposing  a  special  method 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  49 

of  taxation,  a  plan  of  exemption;  but  I  would  be  one  of  the 
last  to  propose  any  exemption  on  the  taxation  of  property. 
This  timber  proposition,  however,  involves  peculiar  considera- 
tions, in  that  the  crop  which  you  are  raising-  takes  from  forty 
to  sixty  years  for  maturity, — and  it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  if 
this  crop  is  taxed  annually,  each  year,  from  the  time  it  starts 
until  it  has  matured  and  is  harvested,  taxed  at  its  full  value 
as  the  tax  commission  propose  it  shall  be  taxed  as  long  as  the 
laws  remain  as  they  are  today,— it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  the 
tax  will  amount  to  more  than  any  one  ever  heara  of  such  a 
crop  beings  worth  when  it  was  harvested,  according-  to  any 
prices  tnat  have  ever  existed  up  to  this  time.  I  hope  this  mat- 
ter may  be  laid  over  for  discussion  in  order  to  g-ive  me  an 
opportunity  to  present  to  this  body  statistics  and  tig-ures  show- 
ing just  Avhat  I  mean  by  that. 

Now  I  should  suppose  that  the  legislature,  in  dealing  with  the 
question  of  taxation  as  to  wild  lands  and  timber  lands,  would 
adopt  a  plan  something  as  follows: — Tax  the  land  itself  for 
every  dollar  it  is  worth  as  land  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
timber,  perhaps  a  dollar  an  acre,  perhaps  two  dollars  an  acre. 
I  am  not  an  expert  on  that  particular  branch  of  it,  but  there 
are  plentj^  of  men  who  are.  Then  ai-range  that  the  tax  on  the 
forest  itself  shall  be  deferred  and  collected  when  the  crop  is 
harvested,  making  the  rate  a  fair  rate,  ten  or  fifteen  percent 
even,  perhaps,  of  the  stumpage  value  when  it  is  cut.  That  will 
encourage  the  increasing  of  our  forest  lands,  so  we  can  have 
the  incidental  benefits  that  result  from  forest  lands,  more  than 
any  other  class  of  property, — the  scenic  effect  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Tilton  just  referred  to;  the  effect  on  our  stream 
flow,  which  is  of  vast  importance  to  our  manufacturing  indus- 
tries; the  ett"ect  on  climate,  on  public  health, — a  hundred  dif- 
ferent incidental  benefits  that  the  public  derive  from  the  forest 
lands  in  common  with  the  owner.  We  shall  be  deriving  a  fair 
income  from  the  land  itself,  and  when  the  crop  is  harvested 
shall  receive  a  fair  contribution  from  the  owner.  T  have  taken 
a  few  moments  to  explain,  and  I  hope  I  may  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  give  the  figures  at  another  hearing.  It  may  be  that 
this  matter  should  come  to  vote  at  this  time  and  I  don't  waut 
any  suggestion  I  have  made  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of 
deferring  action,  providing  the  action  will  be  in  the  direction 
I  want  it. 

Mr.  WadlcUfh  of  Milford. — I  would  like  the  privilege  of  asking 
the  gentleman  from  Tilton  one  thing.  My  mind  is  not  clear 
whether    this    allowing-    cf   classification    of    money    at    interest 


50      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

would  in  any  way  affect  the  law  of  last  session  exempting- 
mortgag-es  on  real  estate  of  less  than  five  per  cent  interest. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — None  whatever.  If  this  amendment 
goes  through,  the  legislature  can  drop  intangibles  entirely 
from  taxation;  they  can  put  them  on  the  same  basis  they  are 
taxed  now;  they  can  tax  more,  they,  can  tax  less, — they  can  do 
anything  they  want  to.  They  can  establish  a  rate  and  assess 
it.  They  would  be  foolish  if  Ihey  did  not  tax  a  good  deal 
lower.  I  hope  to  live  long  enough  to  see  this  whole  thing 
wiped  out.  This  simply  gives  greater  latitude  to  the  legisla- 
ture as  to  what  they  may  do. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — In  listening  to  the  remarks  of  the 
previous  speakers,  the  question  has  naturally  arisen  in  my 
mind, — What  has  brought  about  the  demand  for  a  classification 
of  any  kind  of  property?  And  this  answer  has  come  to  me, — 
That  in  the  natural  course  of  events  in  a  community  like  ours, 
the  community  invariably  takes  upon  itself  activities  which  it 
had  not  contemplated  at  the  beginning, — the  formation  of  the 
community.  The  cost  of  carrying  on  these  enterprises  has  to 
be  paid  by  taxation.  In  the  old  days  we  used  to  leave  the  care 
of  tuberculous  patients  to  their  people.  Now  the  state  has 
established  a  sanatorium,  and  takes  upon  itself  the  care  of 
the  tuberculous  patient.  The  same  with  the  feeble-minded, 
the  same  with  the  insane,  the  same  with  a  large  number  of 
classes  of  individuals  and  activities.  The  state  has  taken  upon 
itself  the  burden  which  is  reflected  in  the  size  of  our  tax  bills. 

Now  as  the  amount  of  taxes  increases,  we  find  that  there  are 
certain  classes  of  property  on  which  a  larger  tax  rate  is  de- 
structive. We  find,  also,  that  there  are  certain  classes  of 
property  which  cannot  be  destroyed  by  any  amount  of 
taxation.  At  the  present  time  we  have  reached  a  position 
wherein  the  tax  that  is  assessed  against  a  piece  of  grow- 
ing timber  has  become  so  great  a  burden  that  it  is  prac- 
tically destructive,  as  was  shown  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  who  last  spoke.  In  addition  to  that,  we  find  that 
the  tax  on  a  bond  at  the  present  time  at  its  full  value 
is  practically  destructive.  A  tax  of  two  percent  on  the  face 
value  of  four  percent  bonds  is  a  fifty  percent  income  tax,  which 
is  practically  destructive,  and  if  continued  wall  drive  all  bonds 
from  New  Hampshire.  The  same  imposition  of  taxes  on  grow- 
ing timber,  as  I  stated  before,  will  inevitably, — ^if  some  provi- 
sion is  not  made, — drive  all  growing  timber  from  New  Hamp- 
shire. If  we  pursue  our  investigation  a  little  further  we  will 
find  there  is   some   rate    of   taxation  which  will  inevitably  de- 


Thursday,  June  (5,  1912.  51 

stroy  all  products  of  labor, — of  human  labor, — and  improve- 
ments. On  the  other  hand,  natural  resources  taxed  at  what- 
ever rate  can  never  be  destroyed.  The  land,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  everj^thing-  whereby  we  live,  upon  which  we  live, 
can  never  be  destroyed  by  a  tax  rate  of  even  one  hundred  per- 
cent. We  have  got  to  live  on  the  land,  and  we  have  g-ot  to  stay 
here.  Now,  as  the  burden  of  taxation  increases,  we  begin  to 
see  the  truth  of  this  fact;  we  are  seeing  it  here  today,  as  has 
been  suggested,  when  we  begin  to  exempt  from  taxation,  or 
to  classify  for  taxation  rather,  the  growing  timber  and  money 
at  interest,  credits  of  various  kinds,  and  as  we  have  already 
done  exempted  mortgages,  bearing  less  than  five  percent  from 
taxation,  that  we  thereby  inevitably  increase  the  burden  of 
taxation,  which  rests  upon  other  classes  of  property.  And 
when  we  exempt  or  partially  exempt,  or  classify  for  taxation, 
money  at  interest,  bonds,  etc.,  and  growing  timber  land,  we 
thereby  increase  the  burden  upon  the  farmer's  cows,  upon  his 
horses,  upon  his  buildings,  upon  the  manufacturer  and  his 
machinery  and  his  stock  in  trade.  So  while  I  am  heartily  in 
favor  of  the  present  amendment  as  far  as  it  goes,  I  believe  it 
should  go  still  further  and  allow  the  classification  of  property 
of  all  kinds  for  taxation,  because  we  shall  see  as  soon  as  we 
commence  to  classify  certain  property,  we  shall  inevitably  have 
to  increase  the  burden  which  will  rest  upon  other  classes  of 
property,  and  thereby  increase  the  present  high  cost  of  living, 
which  is  so  oppressive  upon  us  all. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  the  Committee  rise  and 
report  the  resolution  to  the  Convention,  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  be  agreed  to. 

Quesltion  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport, — 

Mr.  Goss  of  Berlin. — I  am  in  favor  of  this  amendment,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  open  to  question  if  it  wouldn't  be  im- 
proved by  using  the  word  "except"  instead  of  the  word  "pro- 
vided." The  word  "provided"  used  in  this  resolution  carries 
the  inference  that  this  class  of  property  shall  not  be  ratably 
and  equitablj^  taxed.  I  suggest  to  the  Committee  to  which  this 
resolution  shall  be  referred  that  it  substitute  the  word  "ex- 
cept," so  as  not  to  carry  that  inference.  In  the  next  place,  I 
should  like  to  inquire  if  it  would  not  be  better  to  separate  the 
two  subjects,  so  that  the  voters,  when  they  come  to  vote  upon 
them,  can  vote  upon  the  question  of  the  classification  of  forest 
lands  and   of  money  at   interest   separately.     I   sec*  no   connec- 


52      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

tion  between  the  two,  and  it  occurs  to  me  that  there  may  l^e 
voters  who  will  desire  the  adoption  of  one  provision  and  not  of 
the  other.  When  a  vote  is  taken,  I  ask  to  have  the  two  sub- 
jects taken  up  separately. 

Mr.  FelU/ws  of  Tilton. — I  will  say  I  don't  know  but  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Berlin  is  rig-ht.  I  am  rather  inclined  to  think  this 
lang-uag-e  I  have  usecl  is  a  little  better.  If  this  should  g-o  for- 
ward in  fhe  Convention,  I  understand  it  will  go  to  the  proper 
Committee  and  the  phraseology  may  then  be  considered  a  little 
more  than  I  have  been  able  to  consider  it.  I  don't  see  why  the 
Convention,  if  it  sees  fit  to  divide  the  question, — have  the  wild 
lands  and  then  money  at  interest, — can  not  so  divide  it.  If  the 
Committee  think  both  better  go  in  together,  there  will  be  no 
need  of  taking  the  two  votes  here. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — I  am  not  prepared  to  discuss  this 
question,  but  I  want  to  say  it  is  a  pretty  serious  question, — 
one  of  the  most  serious  before  the  Convention, — one  that  there 
is  more  public  agitation  about  this  year  than  any  other  ques- 
tion we  shall  have  to  consider.  I  w-ish  we  could  have  more  dis- 
cussi'on  on  this  matter. 

It  seems  unfair  that  bonds  are  taxable  at  full  value,  whereas 
gilt  edged  securities,  stocks  of  foreign  corporations,  etc.,  are 
not  taxable  at  all. 

One  man  has  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  invested  in  stocks 
and  pays  no  tax,  another  has  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  in 
bonds  and  pays  fifty  percent  of  the  income  as  tax.  It  seems 
to  me  this  miatter  ought  to  be  discussed.  I  think  the  gentle- 
men here  ought  to  discuss  it  thoroughly.  And  the  question  of 
the  taxation  of  wild  lands  ought  to  be  discussed  more  than  it 
has  been,  and  I  hope  that  there  will  be  no  endeavor  to  put 
this  thing  through  without  a  full  consideration  by  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  Hohbs  of  Wolfeboro. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  heartily  in  ac- 
cord with  the  gentleman  from  Milford,  Mr.  Wadleigh,  and  I 
hope,  sir,  that  no  resolution  will  prevail  which  will  deprive 
any  member  of  speaking  here,  many  of  whom  I  know  are  able 
and  willing  and  wanting  to  discuss  this  question  from  every 
viewpoint. 

This  is  a  question  which  interests  every  individual  of  our 
state,  and  all  who  wish  to  speak  should  have  an  opportunity. 
I  do  not  care  to  make  any  further  remarks  at  this  time.  T 
thank  you. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  desire  to  say  in  moving  to  go  into 
Committee  of  the  Whole   on   this   subject  that  I  know    its   im 


Thuksday,  June  6,  1912.  53 

portance  and  that  we  have  ample  time  before  us  at  present. 
In  calling-  upon  the  g-entleman  from  Tilton  to  explain  his 
amendment,  I  thoug-ht  it  would  lead  to  inquiries  by  members 
and  that  we  would  get  various  opinions  at  a  period  of  the  Ck)n- 
vention  when  we  have  little  else  to  do.  Therefore,  I  hope  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport  will  not  prevail,  al- 
though I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment.  The  adoption  of  the 
amendment  simply  confers  power  upon  the  legislature  to 
classify  these  two  kinds  of  what  we  call  property-.  The  legis- 
lature in  its  ^vlsdom  may  see  fit  to  classify  wild  lands  and  it 
may  refuse  to  classify  what  we  call  intangibles.  I  desire  to 
maKe  it  clear  that  the  amendment  merely  confers  authority 
upon  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  withdrew  his  motion  that  the  Com- 
mittee report  the  resohition  to  the  Convention^  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WhiteJier  of  HaverJiill. — I  would  like  to  get  a  clear  under- 
standing of  the  motion.  I  wish  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Tilton,  whether  money  at  interest  includes  all  intangibles, 
stocks,  bonds,  notes,  mortgages, — whether  all  intangibles  are  to 
be  regarded  as  money  at  interest;  and,  further,  I  wish  to 
inquire  whether  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  amendment  to 
put  the  whole  matter  of  wild  forest  lands  and  money  at  in- 
terest up  to  the  legislature  to  classify  as  it  sees  fit. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — I  will  answer  the  last  question  by 
saying,  "Yes."  It  leaves  the  whole  matter  of  forest  lands  and 
the  whole  matter  of  credits  to  the  legislature  to  tax  as  it  sees 
fit. 

The  gentleman  asks, — are  not  stocks  money  at  interest?  Is 
the  deed  of  his  place  which  he  holds, — is  that  money  at  in- 
terest? Can  he  collect  of  himself  the  thousand  or  five  thou- 
sand dollars  which  may  be  the  value  of  that  place  to  himself? 

The  certificate  of  stock  of  a  corporation  is  merely  evidence 
of  ownership  of  an  undi\aded  interest  in  the  actual  property 
of  the  corporation.    , 

If  my  friend,  Senator  Morse,  and  myself  own  a  farm,  and 
each  of  us  has  the  deed  of  an  undivided  half,  and  then  we  should 
sell  to  the  gentleman  from  Milford.  and  should  distribute  it 
piecemeal  to  every  member  in  the  room,  we  would  be  the 
owners  of  that  farm,  or  the  property  of  that  corporation,  and 
if  the  thing  failed  we  would  simply  lose  our  money.  If  I,  as 
an  outsider,  loan  the  gentlemen  a  certain  amount  of  money  and 
take  a   mortgage  of  their  place,  if  that  place  should  go  all  to 


54      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

pieces  and  they  have  no  means  I  could  g-et  nothing-.  They 
promise  to  pay  me  so  much  money  and  so  much  interest, — 
from  as  many  of  them  as  are  g-bou  as  individuals,  or  from  the 
corporation,  I  can  collect  my  money  and  my  interest,  but  when 
T  buy  in  I  am  a  part  owner. 

Now  speaking-  of  these  foreig-n  corporations:  If  anybody  has 
shares  of  stock  in  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  he  simply  has  an 
undivided  interest  in  the  actual  physical  property  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Railroad.  After  it  pays  its  expenses,  if  there  is  an 
overplus,  it  is  divided  among-  the  stockholders;  and  if  the  road 
does  not  earn  anything-,  they  do  not  g-et  anj^hing-. 

There  is  the  greatest  distinction  between  money   at  interest 
^  and  the  deed  of  your  place,  which  is  merely  evidence  that  you 
are  the  actual  owner  of  that  piece  of  property. 

So  this  amendment  would  not  allow  the  classification,  or  the 
taxation  of  stocks  of  foreig-n  corporations,  or  of  domestic  cor- 
porations, which,  as  I  said  before,  in  1838  the  Court  said  was 
unjust  and  oppressive  and  double  taxation,  and  I  do  not  believe 
we  want  to  adopt  double  taxation  to  that  extent.  The  taxa- 
tion of  credits  passes  entirely  to  the  legislature.  If  they  want 
the  law  to  remain  as  it  is  today,  they  can  have  it;  they  can 
chang-e  it  in  any  way  to  suit  themselves,  they  are  not 
throttled  by  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — That  was  my  understanding,  but 
as  the  matter  of  stocks  has  been  mentioned,  and  comparison 
of  six  percent  stock  with  four  percent  bonds  has  been  made, 
I  wish  the  matter  to  be  broug-ht  before  us  clearlj'. 

I  didn't  understand  the  stock  in  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
was  any  more  taxable,  if  I  owned  a  share,  than  half  of  a  farm 
out  in  Illinois  would  be,  were  I  the  owner. 

Mr.  Davis  of  New  Ipswich. — ^^Gentlemen,  there  is  one  more 
point,  just  a  brief  one,  which  I  believe  we  should  consider. 
The  question  seems  to  hing-e  on  money  value,  so  for  illustra- 
tion I  will  take  two  farmers,  two  equally  competent  and  cap- 
able farmers,  the  one,  successful,  put  his  money  into  stocks 
and  bonds,  and  is  taxed  low  according-  to  the  judgment  of  a 
few  individuals,  not  the  majority  of  the  people.  The  other 
puts  his  mon«y  into  live  stock,  horses,  cows,  sheep,  etc.,  into 
those  things  which  are  of  general  benefit  to  the  entire  com- 
mjunity.  He  is  taxed  to  the  full  value.  Now,  Gentlemen,  I 
believe  we  should  consider  this  fact  when  we  are  considering 
these  others.  I  am  not  adverse  to  the  protection  of  the  forest 
lands, — I  believe  in  it,  but  I  believe  that  such  protection  should 
be  reasonably  restricted  and  controlled.  I  believe  if  we  are  to 
exempt  forest  lands,  we  should  do  so  by  a  measure  which  will 


Thuksday,  June  6,  1912.  65 

surely  protect  them.  For  instance,  there  should  be  a  limita- 
tion as  to  the  time  of  cutting-,  which  would  result  in  an  actual 
protection.  This  exemption  of  forest  lands  is  not  entirely  new. 
It  has  been  g"oingf  on  for  a  great  many  years.  If  you  do  not 
believe  it,  go  back  to  your  inventories,  and  you  will  see  where 
pasture,  and  sprout  lots,  have  been  taxed  very  low,  and  so 
taxed  for  a  great  many  years, — so  taxed,  in  fact,  when  they 
were  sold  for  good  timber  lots  and  cut  off  very  shortly  after- 
wards. Now,  if  exemption  is  going  to  protect  forest  lands, 
why  has  it  not  done  so  in  the  past,  for  they  have  been  prac- 
tically exempted  for  years  in  a  great  many  instances?  I  will 
cite  one  case  in  my  locality  where  the  timber  land  set  for  years 
as  sprout  land,  marked  $900,  then  $1100,  then,  I  think  $1800,  and 
finally  last  year  it  was  marked  at  $2800,  and  the  owner,  who 
was  very  angry  at  this,  sold  it  very  shortly  for  $8,000,  and  two 
weeks  later  that  buyer  sold  it  for  $15,000.  Did  the  exemption 
protect  the  forest  land,  or  did  it  protect  the  pocket  books? 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — I  realize,  as  well  as  the  gentleman 
from  Tilton,  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference  between 
bonds  and  stocks  purely  from  a  legal  standpoint.  A  bond  is  evi- 
dence of  debt  and  stock  evidence  of  ownership.  But  from  the 
standpoint  of  taxation  there  is  no  difference.  Every  man  who 
puts  his  money  into  stocks  expects  to  get  interest,  or  he  would 
not  put  it  in  there.  No  stockholder  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
expects  to  take  possession  of  his  share  of  the  road,  all  he 
wants  is  his  interest  or  di\'idend,  and  the  man  who  puts 
money  into  bonds  of  the  same  railroad  expects  his  interest. 
Now  if  this  kind  of  property  is  to  be  taxed  at  all,  let  us  tax 
all  of  it  or  none  of  it.  Why  should  a  man  who  has  saved 
up  fifty  thousand  dollars  and  put  it  into  bonds  be  taxed, 
and  his  neighbor  who  has  saved  np  fifty  thousand  dollars,  and 
puts  it  into  stock  of  the  same  corporation,  not  be  taxed?  I 
cannot  see  any  sense  in  it.  I  think  this  amendment,  if  it  is 
adopted,  should  be  so  changed  as  to  allow  the  legislature  to 
classify  all  kinds  of  investment,  whether  bond  or  stock. 

I  hope  this  amendment  may  be  divided.  There  are  many  of 
us  who  believe  that  timber  land  should"  be  classified,  or  rather 
that  the  legislature  should  have  the  power  to  classify.  I  think 
there  are  a  great  many  people  here  who  believe  that  intangi- 
bles,—stocks,  bonds,  notes,  mortgages,  etc.,— should  all  be 
treated  alike,  either  taxed  alike  or  not  taxed.  So  I  hope  we 
may  have  a  chance  to  vote  on  these  two  propositions  separately. 

Mr.  Garter  of  Lebanon.— I  wish  to  make  one  point  here.  One 
g-entleman  has   said,  if  we  reduce  the  tax  on  bonds  we  mu»t 


56      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

increase  the  tax  on  other  property.  Now  it  strikes  me  Ihat 
is  not  true.  If  the  tax  remains  on  bonds  as  it  is  today,  it  will 
be  only  a  short  time  when  we  shall  drive  the  bonds  out  of  the 
state, — we  shall  not  have  that  tax  at  all.  It  will  work  a  hard- 
ship to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire.  There  are  men  who  are 
trustees  of  property,  and  there  are  widows  and  other  women, 
who  have  small  amounts  upon  which  they  have  to  live.  They 
do  not  wish  to  take  any  great  risk  in  making  their  invest- 
ments. Now,  they  either  must  put  their  money  into  some 
savings  bank,  in  which  case  the  state  will  receive  only  three- 
fourths  of  one  percent,  or  else  they  must  buy  securities,  which  are 
not  so  safe  as  bonds.  There  is  one  gentleman  in  my  own  town, 
who  is  a  trustee  of  an  estate,  and  he  had  that  invested  in  bonds, 
I  think  some  seventeen  thousand  dollars,  and  he  said  to  the 
assessors:  "I  will  pay  the  tax  this  year,  but  If  this  law  remains 
as  it  is,  I  shall  be  oblig-ed  to  put  the  money  somewhere  else." 
And  so  we  shall  lose  the  tax.  I  think  a  g-ood  many  men  would 
put  their  money  into  bonds  and  be  willing  to  pay  a  small  tax, 
who  would  otherwise  buy  preferred  stock,  or  some  other  se- 
curities upon  which  they  would  not  be  taxed  in  our  state. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Mancliester. — I  don't  rise  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  this  matter,  but  to  make  a  motion,  because  this  tax 
matter  is  a  good  deal  like  the  tariff.  I  have  studied  it  a  great 
deal.  The  more  I  study  it  the  less  I  know  about  it,  and  I  don't 
know  anybody  that  knows  any  more  about  it  than  I  do.  Now 
there  are  evidently  many  here  who  desire  to  discuss  this  ques- 
tion and  we  have  ample  time,  and  we  can  take  time  to  discuss 
it  before  this  Convention  shall  close  its  proceedings.  I  don't 
like  to  see  any  one  out  off.  I  am  not  interested  in  any  bonds 
or  stocks.  I  have  none,  never  have  had  any  and  don't  expect 
to  have  any.  But  there  are  others  who  would  like  an  explana- 
tion of  this  proposed  amendment. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester,  that  the  Com- 
mittee do  now  jise,  report  progress^  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again, 
rhe  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Conyention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  whom  was  referred  Eesolntion  No.  5,  Eelating  to  Taxation 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  57 

of  Wild  and  Forest  Lands  and  Money  at  Interest,  having  con- 
sidered the  same,  leport  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  leave  granted. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Resolution  No.  18. 
Eelating  to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking 
out  Articles  9  and  10  of  the  second  part  thereof,  and  in- 
serting the  following: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a 
representation  of  the  people,  to  consist  of  three  hundred  and 
fifty  members,  biennially  elected,  and  founded  upon  princi- 
ples of  equality,  and  in  order  that  such  representation  may  be 
as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every  town  or  place 
entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities  containing 
three  hundred  or  more  inhabitants  by  the  last  census  of  the 
smte,  taken  by  authority  of  the  state  or  of  the  United  States, 
may  elect  one  member.  The  remaining  number  necessary 
to  complete  the  full  number  of  three  hundred  and  fifty  shall 
be  apportioned  to  such  towns  and  cities  as  shall  have  five 
thousand  or  more  inhabitants,  as  shown  by  said  census,  in 
proportion  to  the  population  of  said  towns  and  cities.  And 
the  governor,  with  the  advice  of  the  council,  shall  make  and 
publish  such  apportionment  within  thirty  days  after  the  re- 
ceipt of  an  official  return  of  said  census. 

Provided,  that  no  town  or  ward  shall  be  divided  or  estab- 
lished for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  representation  from 
any  town  or  city. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  submitted  certain  statistics  and  ta- 
bles, explanatory  of  Kesolution  No.  18,  Relating  to  the  House 


68      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  Representatives,  and,  on  motion  of  the  same  gentleman, 
the  same  was  laid  on  the  table  to  be  printed  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  with  the  resolution. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket, — 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  directed  to  secure 
the  usual  number  of  printed  copies  of  the  roll  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  the  Constitution  of  the  state,  for  the  use  of  the 
members. 

The  President. — Is  there  not  something-  we  can  do? 

Mr.  Cavanaiigh  of  Manchester. — I  will  sug-g-est  that  the  amend- 
ment which  I  submitted  giving*  to  the  legislature  the  right  to 
establish  voting  precincts,  might  be  taken  from  the  table,  not 
necessarily  for  final  action,  unless  the  members  should  vdsh 
to  take  such  action,  but  that  it  might  be  discussed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  that  Resolu- 
tion Xo.  10,  Relating  to  Voting  Precincts,  be  taken  from  the 
table  and  the  Convention  resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole  to  consider  the  resolution. 

The  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  CoMjkriTTE'E  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Cavanmigh  of  Manchester. — Mr.  Chairman,  as  this  proposed 
amendment  was  submitted  by  me,  I  would  like  to  say  just  a 
word,  and  that  is, — It  is  an  amendment  similar  to  the  one  that 
was  introduced  in  the  last  Convention,  and  as  I  understand  it, 
adopted  by  the  Convention,  and  submitted  to  the  people,  but 
which  did  not  receive  the  required  two-thirds  vote. 

It  simply  means  this:  It  is  a  plan  to  give  to  the  legislature 
the  authority,  whenever  the  inhabitants  of  any  ward  or  any 
town  think  their  voting  list  is  so  large  as  to  make  it  difficult 
to  accommodate  everybody  who  wishes  to  vote,  the  right  to 
establish  more  than  one  voting  place  in  that  town  or  ward. 

Now  I  did  not  expect  that  the  discussion  would  begin  at  this 
time,  so  I  have  no  figures  relating  to  the  city  of  Manchester, 
showing  how  many  voters  there  are  in  each  ward,  but  those 
figures  can  be  had,  if  the  members  wish  to  have  them,  later  on; 
but  it  seems  to  me,  considering  the  conditions  in  our  city,  and 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  59 

in  other  cities  and  some  towns,  there  being-  so  many  voters  in 
some  of  the  wards,  it  is  practically  impossible,  within  the  hours 
specified  by  the  law  for  the  opening-  of  the  polls  and  closing-, 
to  permit  everybody  to  vote.  I  think  this  condition  will  be 
more  pronounced  in  the  future  than  in  the  past.  As  1  under- 
stand it,  the  last  session  of  the  leg-islature  passed  a  law  elim- 
inating- marking-  in  the  circle  for  the  purpose  :of  voting  the 
straig-ht  ticket.  Hereafter  we  shall  be  called  upon  to  vote 
separately  for  every  candidate  on  the  ticket,  which,  of  course, 
will  take  more  time.  There  have  been  instances  in  our  city 
which  have  proved  the  necessity  for  this  amendment  in  another 
important  feature  incident  to  it;  the  amount  of  time  which 
has  been  required  for  the  counting-,  sorting-  and  making-  return 
of  the  votes  cast,  on  the  part  of  the  election  officers,  who  work 
sometimes  until  the  middle  of  the  next  day.  That  is  some- 
thing that  should  not  be  allowed  to  exist,  in  my  opinion.  The 
number  of  voting  places  should  be  made  larger  so  the  number 
of  votes  cast  in  each  place  will  be  smaller  and  the  work  of  the 
election  officers  after  the  polls  are  closed  expedited;  and  to 
give  to  the  voters  greater  convenience  in  the  matter  of  voting 
during  the  hours  that  the  polls  are  open.  It  is  merely  to  give 
some  authority  to  the  legislature  to  enact  some  law  to  carry 
this  into  effect.  That  is  practically  all  there  is  to  the  amend- 
ment. If  there  should  be  some  more  discussion  on  it, — if  there 
should  be  serious  objection  to  the  amendment, — I  should  ask 
that  the  matter  be  taken  up  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  I 
will  submit  figures  showing  the  necessity  of  legislation  of  this 
kind,  at  least,  in  our  city. 

Mr.  Newell  of  Surry. — It  has  been  my  lot  to  be  an  election 
officer,  and  I  realize  that  in  some  of  the  wards  in  Manchester, 
and  in  some  of  the  larger  towns  in  this  state,  it  must  impose 
great  hardship,  especially  in  counting  the  votes.  This  amend- 
ment ought  to  pass.  It  was  passed  by  the  last  Constitutional 
Convention,  and  it  was  submitted  by  it  to  the  people,  but 
failed  of  ratification,  but  I  hope  the  Convention  will  submit  the 
amendment  again, — try  once  more. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  simply  rise  to  say  that  this  amend- 
ment was  thoroughly  considered  in  the  last  Convention,  and 
simply  failed  of  ratification  by  the  people,  because  it  was  not 
understood.  It  gives  permission  to  the  legislature  to  divide  the 
large  wards  of  cities  into  voting  precincts,  and  to  provide  vot- 
ing precincts  for  the  large  towTis,  if  they  desire  it.  Some  one 
has  called  attention,  perhaps  the  gentleman  from  Manchester, 
to  the  fact  that  the  Australian  vote  was  changed  by  the  last 


(30      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

leg-i^lature,  so  that,  instead  of  being  able  to  vote  by  groups  by 
making  a  cross  at  the  head  of  the  column,  we  have  to"  vote 
for  the  individual  candidates  by  making  crosses  against  their 
nam.es.  That  entails  more  labor  on  the  election  officers  in 
counting,  especially  in  the  large  wards.  Some  of  our  .wards  in 
Concord  would  be  affected  by  it.  It  is  a  provision  in  the  Con- 
stitution that  will  enable  the  legislature  to  take  care  of  these 
large  wards  and  provide  them  with  conveniences  for  voting 
and  for  counting  by  dividing  them  into  voting  precincts.  That 
is  the  whole  of  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  do  now  rise  and  recommend  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford, — 

Mr.  Crawfoi'd  of  Manchester. —Mr.  Chairman,  coming  as  I  do 
from  one  of  the  largest  wards  in  the  city  of  Manchester,  I 
realize  the  disadvantage  under  which  they  labor  by  having  only 
one  precinct  in  the  ward.  In  Massachusetts  I  know  the  wards 
of  the  size  of  the  one  where  I  live  would  have_  several  voting 
precincts,  which  accommodate  not  only  the  voters,  but  the 
election  officers,  and  I  don't  think  there  is  a  member  here,  no 
matter  from  how  small  a  town  he  maj'^  come,  who  understands 
as  the  delegation  here  from  Manchester  understands,  who  will 
have  one  word  to  say  against  the  adoption  of  this  resolution. 
When  you  get  into  a  ward  of  two  or  three  thousand  voters, 
when  voting  is  delayed  under  the  present  system  of  marking 
the  ballots, — which  I  prefer  to  the  circle, — no  matter  how  many 
polling  places  they  may  have  it  oftentimes  happens  that  all 
the  voters  do  not  get  in  before  the  polls  close.  Then  the  elec- 
tion officers  work  all  night,  sometimes  into  the  next  day,  before 
the  vote  is  canvassed.  There  is  no  injury  that  can  result  from 
having  smaller  precincts  in  the  larger  wards.  They  should  be 
fairly  divided, — every  voter  will  have  his  right  secured,  and  the 
labor  vdll  be  greatly  reduced,  and  I  hope,  not  only  for  the 
benefit  of  the  larger  towns,  but  especially  for  the  relief  of  our 
large  wards  in  our  cities,  this  Convention  will  adopt  the  motion 
which  has  been  made,  that  this  resolution  of  the  Committee, 
when  we  rise  to  report,  wdll  be  reported  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  it  be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Whitchrr  of  Haverhill. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  suppose  there  are 
two  sides  to  almost  every  question.  I  believe,  could  the  matter 
be  adjusted   without   too   great  difficulty,  that  voting  precincts 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  61 

in  our  larg-er  towns  and  wards  of  cities  would  be  a  very  great 
convenience.  The  matter  ot  adjustment,  of  course,  would  have 
to  be  left  to  the  legislature.  As  I  understand  it  this  amend- 
ment is  simply  a  constitutional  permission  for  the  legislature 
to  create  voting  precincts  in  such  large  wards  of  the  cities  and 
in  towns,  as  may  be  desired,  or  as  the  legislature  may  deem 
wise  to  create.  13ut  looking  forward  a  little,  in  the  town  of 
Haverhill  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  represent,  while 
voting  precincts  in  that  town  would  be  of  great  convenience, 
three-quarters  of  the  voters  of  the  town  having  to  make  jour- 
neys of  four  to  five  or  eight  miles  to  reach  the  town  hall,  and 
with  upwards  of  a  thousand  names  on  the  checklist,  and  with 
all  the  difficulties  of  marking  the  ballots  as  has  been  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Concord, — while  voting  precincts 
would  be,  I  say,  of  great  convenience  in  that. town,  there  would 
be  some  practical  difficulties,  and  some  other  amendments,  or 
legislation,  would  be  necessary  to  carry  such  things  into  eifect. 
For  example,  at  present  the  election  officers  of  wards  and 
cities  at  the  November  elections  make  declaration  as  to  the 
election  of  moderator  and  supervisors  and  members  of  the 
General  Court,  and  with  two  or  three  voting  precincts  in  the 
wards  of  the  cities,  and  in  the  towns,  some  arrangement  would 
have  to  be  made  for  the  return  of  the  votes  of  who  was  elected. 
Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — A  matter  of  legfislation. 
Mr.  Whitclwr  of  Haverhill. — My  friend  from  Concord  says  a 
matter  of  legislation.  I  am  speaking  of  the  difficulties  that 
might  arise  in  the  way  of  any  legislation,  and  I  presume  it  was 
those  difficulties  that  led  to  the  rejection  of  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  last  Constitutional  Convention.  There  would 
certainly  have  to  be  a  set  of  election  officers  for  each  of  those 
precincts.  It  seems  to  me  there  are  practical  difficulties  that 
would  be  found  in  the  way,  when  the  legislature  attempted  to 
solve  the  problem,  if  the  people  should  adopt  this  amendment. 
It  would,  however,  be  a  great  convenience  in  many  towns  and 
wards  of  the  cities. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. — ^Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  I  never 
knew  a  piece  of  legislation  proposed  to  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire,  or  to  any  other  legislature,  that  wasn't  filled 
with  difficulty  by  some  man  or  men,  who  had  an  innate  feeling 
to  oppose  or  offer  slight  opposition  to  the  measure.  Now  it 
has  been  said  that  the  cities  and  large  towns  are  affected  by 
this  proposition,  or  change.  That  is  true.  I  do  not  know  but 
it  would  be  wise  for  the  gentlman  from  Manchester  to  offer 
an  amendment  to  omit  from  the  proposed  change  the  word 
"towns"  and  then  my  friend  from  the  North  Country,  who  has 


t)2      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

just  spoken,  would  not  be  frightened  with  the  danger,  and  the 
troubles   that    would   confront    some    succeeding   legislafure    of 
New  Hampshire,    of  which   he    might   have   the   honor    to   be   a 
member.     But    so    far    as    we    are    concerned    and    the    city    of 
Manchester, — of  which   I  have   some   knowledge,  being  from   a 
neighboring  city  some  seventeen  miles  away, — and  my  own  city, 
Nashua, — we  have  some  very  large  wards.     Ward  7,  I  think  in 
Nashua  has   a  checklist  of  700.     I  think  Ward  9  has  a  larger 
list,    or   substantially    the   same,   and    I   know   that   the   voters, 
especially  in    Ward   7,    have  inadequate   quarters, — and  also   in 
Ward    8, — within    which    to    vote.     There    do    not    seem    to    be 
convenient  places  in  any  of  these  wards  where  a  large  room  or 
hall  or  place  can  be  found  for  voting.     In  these  wards  a  school- 
room or  a  basement  to  a  school  house,  has  been  used  for  years. 
It   is  not  an  uncommon  thing  in   the   general  election   to   find 
the   election   officers   there   until   twelve   o'clock   the   next   day, 
having  worked  all  night  and  the  forenoon  to  finish  the  canvass- 
ing and  counting  of  the  ballots.     Under  the  proposed  amend- 
ment, the  legislature  can  divide  those  wards  into  two  or  three 
precincts,  and   the  voters  could   go   and  vote  in  quietness   and 
have  plenty  of  room  and  plenty  of  light  to  see  to  mark  their 
ballots;  the  election  officers  could  have  the  same  conditions  for 
canvassing    the    returns,    and    get    their    work    done    within    a 
reasonable  time  after  the  voting  had  ceased, — we  could  get  the 
returns  from  these  wards  more  rapidly, — and  you  all  know  we 
like  to  hear  early  the  returns  after  the  polls  are  closed.     It  is 
true  it  would  make   a  few   dollars  of  expense,  it  might  mean 
an  additional  set  of  election  officers,  or,  if  it  was  divided  into 
three  precincts,  three  sets  of  officers,  but  the  expense  is  small. 
The  voters  of  those  wards  have  the  right  to  have  a  convenient 
place.     Perhaps    the   pay   of   the    election    officers   could    be    re- 
duced.    I   think   perhaps   the   officers   themselves,   if  consulted, 
would  be  willing  to  take  half  pay,  if  they  didn't  have  to  work 
all  day  and  all  night  and  into  the  next  forenoon,  and  could  get 
through  a   few  hours  after  the   close  of  the  polls.     I   think  if 
the   gentleman   from   Haverhill   will   look  this  matter  over,   he 
will  see  there  is  no  objection  to  this  proposition.     If  you  will 
canvass  the  vote  of  the  people  ten  years  ago  in  the  state,  the}^ 
voted    strongly    in    favor   of    it.     Out    in    some    of   the    country 
towns  where  they  care  nothing  about  it, — were  not  interested 
in  it, — the  vote  was  not  the  same  as  in  the  wards  of  the  cities, 
where  the  people  were  interested.     The  Convention  adjourned 
and   the   amendment   proposed   to   be   submitted   to   the    people 
was  printed  in  the  newspai)ers.     The  voters  went  to  the  polls 
and  those  who  were  interested  voted,  as  the  returns  vdll  show. 


Thuksday,  June  6,   19.12.  63 

While  in  the  country  towns  it  was  different,  and  so  I  say  on 
the  whole  under  tiiose  conditions,  the  tenth  amendment  was 
carried  by  a  good  fair  majority,  as  I  recollect  it,  something 
over  3,000  plurality.  My  friend  from  Concord  suggests  major- 
ity; that  is  better  still,  but  3'ou  can  examine  for  yourselves. 
The  vote  is  there  and  I  say,  in  fairness  to  the  large  wards  of 
the  cities  of  this  state,  and  the  voters  of  these  cities,  we  ought 
to  submit  it  to  the  people,  and  see  if  they  will  adopt  it,  and 
if  my  distinguished  friend  from  Haverhill  has  serious  objec- 
tion, or  his  mind  is  troubled  with  what  would  happen  when  it 
comes  to  the  legislature,  I  am  perfectly  walling,  for  one,  to  say 
to  him,  if  he  wants  the  word  "towns"  stricken  out,  "I  will 
consent,"  but  so  far  as  the  wards  of  the  cities  are  concerned, 
and  the  cities  of  Manchester  and  ^Nashua,  I  will  object,  and  I 
hope  the  motion  to  report  it  favorably  yill  be  adopted,  and  we 
will  be  nearer  the  goal  for  adjournment  by  getting  this  out  of 
the  way  at  once. 

Mr.  Broderick  of  MancJvester. — One  phase  of  this  subject  has 
not  been  discussed.  I  read  in  the  papers  a  day  or  two  ago  an 
account  of  a  gentleman  from  Belgium  who  took  pains  to  go 
to  a  mayor  or  notary  public  here  to  provide  evidence  that  he 
was  in  America  at  the  time  of  voting  in  the  election  in  this 
country.  It  suggested  to  me  this  idea.  This  measure  affects 
even  the  smallest  towns  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  It  is 
much  to  be  desired,  it  will  be  admitted,  at  the  time  of  election 
that  there  shall  be  a  very  universal  expression  of  the  people 
on  every  question  submitted  to  them.  The  working  of  our 
present  election  machinery  in  effect  disfranchises  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  people  of  the  larger  towns  and  wards  of  our 
state,  and  hence  we  do  not  secure  anj'^thing  like  an  universal 
expression,  because  it  is  physically  impossible,  in  many  of  our 
wards,  for  the  people  to  express  their  choice.  In  that  way  it 
affects  the  interest  of  the  remotest  and  smallest  town  in  our 
state.  For  instance,  in  Ward  6  in  Manchester  there  are  2160 
voters.  They  vote  from  9  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  6  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon.  You  will  see,  gentlemen,  by  a  very  simple 
mathematical  demonstration,  it  is  not  possible  for  these  2160 
men  to  express  their  choice  on  election  day.  And  Ward  6  is 
not  a  great  exception.  W^ard  5  and  Ward  9, — and  I  imagine 
there  must  be  large  towns, — have  that  exact  situation.  Yoa 
will  keep  in  mind  that  there  is  a  large  proportion  of  the  citi- 
zens who  can  only  have  a  certain  time  to  get  to  the  polls,  and 
that  time  being  at  noon  very  often  they  do  not  have  the  op- 
portunity to  express  their  choice.  Our  present  election  ma- 
chinery disfranchises  a  very  large  proportion  of  our  citizenship. 


64      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

and  as  I  said,  affects  even  the  towns  where  they  can  vote  in  an 
hour  or  two. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Ooffstown. — The  gentleman  who  last  spoke  il- 
lustrates a  forcible  point  of  the  argnment, — a  disfranchising-  cf 
the  voters  in  the  wards  which  he  cites.  The  larg-er  portion 
of  these  people  are  laboring  people,  w^ho  go  to  the  polls  at  the 
noon  hour  or  the  night  hour.  Mathematically  they  are  dis- 
franchised. It  is  impossible  for  them  to  have  an  opportunity 
to  vote.  If  you  carry  the  thing  out,  about  six  people  must 
vote  in  a  minute,  which  is  an  intpossibility.  Now  the  con- 
stituents I  represent  have  thought  of  this  matter,  and  they 
are  willing, — and  I  speak  as  a  representative  of  a  town, — per- 
haps the  second  or  third  largest  in  Hillsborough  Countj^ — 
they  are  favorably  inclined  towards  this  proposition,  and  I 
hope  the  members  from  the  country  towns  will  look  favor- 
ably upon  this,  as  it  is  certainly  a  step  in  the  right  direction, 
and  a  step  which  is  towards  progression. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — I  want  to  disabuse  the  mind  of 
the  gentleman  from  Nashua  of  the  idea  that  I  am  at  all 
frightened  at  anything  of  this  kind.  I  have  the  impression 
that  my  own  town,  if  the  matter  could  be  worked  out  easily 
and  without  any  serious  difficulty,  would  be  in  favor  of  just 
that  thing.  We  suffer  greatly  in  Woodsville,  for  instance,  from 
the  inconvenience  of  being  obliged  to  vote  a  long  distance 
from  our  residences,  and  I  know  we  do  not  usually  get  through 
canvassing  the  vote  until  about  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  of 
the  next  day.  It  certainly  would  be  a  convenience  in  the  large 
town  of  Haverhill.  I  only  spoke  of  the  fact  that  there  are 
some  practical  difficulties  in  the  way,  and  it  might  require 
changes  in  the  matter  of  statute  law,  and  as  the  gentleman 
from  Nashua  will,  of  course,  be  in  the  next  great  and  General 
Court  he  can  arrange  it  all  satisfactorily. 

Mr.  Wddleigh  of  Milford. — I  desire  to  say  that  I  don't  like  to 
have  it  laid  on  the  towns  not  ratifying  this  amendment  when 
submitted  by  the  previous  Convention.  I  notice  that  in  Ward 
9,  Manchester, — if  you  will  look  at  the  Manual, — that  the  vote 
in  favor  of  this  amendment  was  186  for,  and  457  against, — a 
a  very  large  majority  against  it.  Manchester  did  not  ratify 
this  amendment,  while  Milford  and  other  towns  ratified  it  by 
a  great  majority.  I  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  put  the 
blame  where  it  belongs  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. — It  was  a  general  statement  made  as 
to  towns,  and  if  I  had  confined  myself  strictly  to  the  record, 
I  should  have  illustrated  it  by  using  the  word  "Haverhill"  as 
that  town  voted  three  to  one   against  it. 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  65 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter,  for  the  Committee  of  the  y/'hole, 
to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  Xo.  10^  Relating  to  Voting 
Precincts,  haviDg  considered  the  same,  recommend  that  the 
resolution  be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted, 
and  the  resolution  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  12.37  o'clock. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  met  at  2  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Leave,  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Hanson  of  Middleton  was  granted  leave  of  absence 
until  Tuesday;  June  11,  on  account  of  sickness  in  his  family. 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Ej!&0IyUTION  No.   19. 

Relating  to  the   Senate. 

Resolved,  That  Article  25,  Part  2,  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  by  stri"king  out  the  words  ^'and,  in  making  this 
division,  they  shall  govern  themselves  by  the  proportion  of 
direct  taxes  paid  by  the  said  district/'  so  that  said  article  as 
amended  shall  read  as  follows: 

Art.  25.  i^nd,  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  Senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide 


66      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  state  into  twenty-four  districts,  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be 
without  dividing  towns  and  unincorporated  places;  and 
timely  make  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  the  limits 
of  each  district. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont^  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Updyke  of  Hanover  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resoi/Ution  Xo.  20. 

Relating  to  the  Election  of  County  Officers. 

Resolved,  That  Article  70  of  Part  Second  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  stricken  out  and  that  the  following  article  be  sub- 
stituted therefor: 

There  shall  be  elected  or  appointed  in  and  for  each  of  the 
counties,,  in  the  manner  hereinafter  prescribed^  three  county 
commissioners,  a  treasurer,  a  solicitor,  a  sheriff,  a  register  of 
probate  and  a  register  of  deeds.  At  the  biennial  election 
held  in  N'ovember,  1914,  the  electors  of  the  several  counties 
shall  elect  three  county  commissioners,  who  shall  hold  office 
for  two,  four  and  six  years  respectively,  and  at  each  biennial 
election  thereafter,  one  county  commissioner,  who  shall  hold 
office  for  a  term  of  six  years.  The -county  commissioners 
elected  under  this  article  shall  elect  the  county  treasurer, 
who  shall  hold  office  at  their  pleasure.  TKe  solicitor  and 
the  sheriff  shall  be  appointed  by  the  judges  of  the  superior 
court  and  shall  hold  office  for  a  term  of  five  years;  they  shall 
be  subject  to  removal  by  the  judges  of  the  superior  court 
for  cause,  after  due  notice  and  a  hearing.  The  register  of 
deeds  and  the  register  of  probate  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  council  and  shall  hold  office  for  a  terra  of  five 
years;  they  shall  be  subject  to  removal  by  the  governor  and 
council  for  cause,  after  due  notice  and  a  hearing.  The  first 
appointments  under  this  article  of  solicitor,  sheriff,  register 
of  probate  and  register  of  deeds  shall  be  made  to  take  effect 
on  the  first  day  of  January,  1915. 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  67 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

Mr.  "W'Thittemore  of  Dover  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  No.  21. 

Eelating  to  Appointment  of  Solicitors. 

Resolved,  That  Article  70  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  striking  out  the  word  "solicitors"  and  that 
the  following  article  be  added  to  the  Constitution: 

The  county  solicitors  shall  be  appointed  by  the  judges  of 
the  superior  court  and  shall  hold  office  for'  a  term  of  five 
years.  They  shall  be  subject  to  removal  by  the  judge  of  the 
superior  court  for  cause,  after  due  notice  and  hearing.  The 
judges  of  the  superior  court  shall  have  power  to  make  all 
necessary  rules  for  carrying  into  effect  the  provision  of  this 
article.  The  first  appointment  under  this  article  shall  be 
made  to  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1915. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  that  Resolution  No. 
6,  Relating  to  Grading  of  Inheritance  Taxes  and  Exemptions 
be  taken  from  the  table  and  that  the  Convention  resolve 
itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  consider  the  resolu- 
tion, the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Committee  op  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Hall  of  Dover  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Felloivs  of  Tilton. — In  1902  the  Constitutional  Convention 
made  it  possible  for  the  legislature  to  tax  inheritances.  Prior 
to  that  time,  such  laws  had  not  prevailed  in  this  state,  and 
they  may  not  have  been  constitutional;  the  amendment  in  brief 
was    this:     The    public    charges    of    g-overnment    or    any    part 


68       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  of  polls,  estates  and  other 
classes  of  property,  including-  franchises  and  property  when 
passing  by  will   or  inheritance. 

Of  course  very  soon  the  question  came  to  the  court  whether 
the  subsequent  inheritance  tax  law  was  constitutional,  and  the 
court  held  it  was;  that  is  to  say,  a  flat  tax  of  5%  as  it  is  now 
assessed  on  property  when  passing-  to  collateral  heirs,  was  sus- 
tained. Inere  is  a  question,  or  the  court  said  a  year  ago  last 
winter  they  were  in  doubt,  whether  the  Constitution  was  so 
broad  that  taxes  could  be  graded;  in  other  words,  a  tax  as- 
sessed according  to  the  amount  of  the  estate  passing,  in  case 
of  a  large  estate,  you  might  not  be  able  to  get  more  out  of 
it   proportionally,    than   you   could    from    a    smaller    estate. 

This  was  the  language  of  the  opinion  of  the  court  given  to 
the   legislature   in   1911.     It   is   very   brief   and   to   the   point: 

"Upon  the  principle  of  that  decision  (Thompson  vs.  Kidder, 
74  N.  H.,  89),  we  see  no  objection  to  an  assessment  at  different 
rates  upon  classes  standing  in  different  relations  to  the 
original  owner  of  the  property,  or  between  which  there  is 
reasonable  ground  for  distinction.  To  be  exact,  the  tax  may 
be  assessed  at  a  different  rate  upon  the  property  passing  to 
direct  heirs  than  to  collaterals;  a  distinction  may  be  made 
between  relatives  more  or  less  remote  in  direct  line.  Upon 
the  question  whether,  in  view  of  the  fundamental  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  as  it  was  construed  and  understood  prior 
to  1903,  it  was  intended  by  the  amendment  then  made  to 
authorize  an  exaction  from  those  in  the  same  class  or  rela- 
tion to  the  testator  or  ancestor  varying  in  accordance  with 
the  amount  of  property  passing,  or  in  other  words,  to  au- 
thorize a  classification  based  upon  amount  merely,  we  find  that 
we   are   not   agreed    in   opinion."     House   Journal,    1911,    p.   687. 

Everybody  who  is  in  favor  of  an  inheritance  tax  is  in  favor 
of  some  form  of  statute  which  will  allow  the  gradation  of 
the  tax  depending  on  the  amount  of  property  passing.  Sup- 
posing a  man  is  going  to  get  one  thousand  dollars,  he  may 
now  be  called  upon  to  pay  two  percent  or  five  percent,  and 
the  man  getting  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  will  be  called 
upon  to  pay  the  same  amount.  That  is  not  exactly  fair.  The 
purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  allow  the  legislature,  if  it 
desires,  to  take  a  graded  tax  according  to  the  amount  of 
property  passing  from  the  testator  or  donor,  to  the  legatee 
or  donee. 

In  trying  to  get  an  amendment  which  would  be  brier  and 
yet  cover  the  points,  this   has  been   introduced. 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  69 

(Reads  resolution) 

This  will  serve  to  cover  the  case  vs^here  the  estates  are  small, 
where  there  are  minors,  or  in  the  case  of  widows.  The 
langoiag-e  of  the  proposed  amendment  explains  the  situation, 
and  what  the  Court  has  said  in  addition  explains  the  situation 
better  than  I  could  if  I  should  stand  here  and  attempt  to  talk 
a  g"reat  while  long-er. 

Mr.  Corning  of  Concord. — The  g-entleman  from  Tilton  spoke 
of  taxing-  widows? 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — I  say  the  clause  in  here,  "and  reason- 
able exemptions  may  be  made,"  will  allow  the  exemptions  for 
widows  or  minor  children,  or  any  such  thing  as  that. 

Mr.  Corning  of  Concord. — Widows  are  not  taxed? 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — Of  course  they  are  not  taxed  now  as 
the  law  is.  The  law  passed  was  merely  a  collateral  inheritance 
tax  law,  and  it  can  remain  as  it  is,  and  vsddows  need  not  be 
taken  into  consideration.  It  is  possible  now  we  could  have 
a  direct  state  tax,  but  if  you  did  possibly  the  widows  would 
have  to  come  in. 

Mr.  Corning  of  Concord. — I  do  believe  In  gradation,  but  I 
hardly  believe  in  direct  tax  to  children  or  widows. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — The  legislature  need  not  impose  it  in 
this  case.  I  do  not  intend  to  tax  widows  by  any  manner  of 
means,  except  in  cases  of  large  estates.  The  leg^islature 
might  do  it  today,  and  they  might  under  this  amendment,  and 
might  not. 

Mr.  Eastmam,  of  Exeter. — I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  any 
discussion  of  this  proposed  amendment,  but  in  the  past  I  have 
had  considerable  to  do  with  the  business  pertaining  to  the 
office  of  the  state  treasurer  and  the  collection  of  this  inheri- 
tance tax,  and  this  proposed  amendment  has  been  drawn  up 
in  accordance  with  the  needs  of  the  department  in  the  ex- 
pedition of  the  business  pertaining  to  it,  in  the  interests  of 
justice,  so  to  speak.  As  the  law  now  stands,  and  as  we  under- 
stand it  has  got  to  be  interpreted  under  the  Constitution,  w« 
are  obliged  to  assess  what  is  called  a  horizontal  tax  of  five 
percent.  Under  this  proposed  amendment  the  legislature  has 
it  in  its  power  to  pass  such  acts  as  will  enable  the  State 
Treasurer,  in  the  collection  of  this  tax,  to  exercise  some  judg- 
ment in  regard  to  particular  cases,  which  under  the  law  as  it 
now  stands,  and  as  it  has  to  be  in  conformity  with  the  Con- 
stitution, is  not  the  case,  and  without  entering  into  any 
extended    discussion   I  believe  this   proposed   amendment  is  in 


70      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  line  of  what  we  oug-ht  to  have,  and  what  we.  need  if  we 
are  going-  to  have  an  inheritance  tax,  which  certainly  has 
proved  itself  a  very  g-ood  thing  for  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. It  has  broug"ht  ver^'  larg-e  revenues  to  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and,  as  I  believe,  without  inflicting  unnecessary 
hardship  upon  the  people  of  this   state. 

I  hope  the  proposed  amendment  will  be  recommended  by 
the  Committee  and  will  be  finally  adopted  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Craicford  of  Maivchester. — The  original  bill,  I  believe  I  had 
the  privilege,  at  the  request  of  members  of  the  legislature, 
of  drafting.  To  those  of  you  who  are  not  familiar  with  that  law, 
which  was  patterned  very  closely  after  the  law  of  Massachu- 
setts making-  it  applicable  to  New  Hampshire,  widows,  children, 
sons-in-law  and  daug-hters-in-law,  brothers  and  sisters,  were 
exempt,  so  it  only  applied  to  the  collaterals,  to  one  not  nearly 
related  to  the  deceased,  upon  whom  the  tax  of  five  percent 
was  levied.  Now  it  has  seemed  to  me  the  more  of  it  they  have, 
the  more  they  should  pay  on  the  tax,  because,  if  anyone  A.ants 
to  leave  me  a  million  dollars  who  isn't  related  to  me,  I  will 
willing"ly  pay  the  five  percent  tax  on  it,  and  under  the  present 
law  the  widows  and  children  and  immediate  relatives  are 
exempt.  Now  I  hope  this  state  will  not  follow  Massachusetts. 
When  they  g-ot  the  wedge  in  and  g-ot  the  collateral  inheritance 
tax,  then  the  next  thing  was  to  bring  it  right  home  to  the 
widows  and  children,  and  they  get  a  smaller  percentage,  but 
they  tax  them  all. 

The  craze  for  taxation  and  the  craze  for  creating  offices 
which  can  draw  the  amount  of  money  raised  by  taxation,  is 
running  wild.  The  moment  that  jow  find  in  this  state  that 
there  is  a  measure  passed  to  increase  the  receipts  of  our 
treasury,  then  up  springs  somebody  advocating  some  commis- 
sion or  other  office  so  as  to  draw  that  money. 

Now,  I  am  not  opposed  to  this  resolution.  The  original  bill, 
as  I  prepared  it  for  Mr.  Pillsbury  who  had  charge  of  it  in  the 
legislature,  and  who  is  a  member  of  this  Convention,  I  thought 
five  percent  would  reach  those  that  ought  to  pay  the  tax  if 
they  were  going  to  inherit  the  estate,  exempting  all  those  to 
whom  the  estate  rightfully  belonged,  but  the  suggestion  which 
is  made  here  in  this  amendment  is  a  gradation  of  that  tax. 
If  I  can  be  assured  that  the  immediate  relatives,  who  are  now 
exempt  under  the  present  law,  will  continue  to  be  exempt  by 
the  legislature  if  this  amendment  is  adopted,  and  the  grada- 
tion will  increase  in  percentage,  according  to  the  size  of 
the   estate,  so  those  who   get   the  most  will  pay  the  most,  I 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  71 

should  have  no  objections  to  it,  but  I  think  the  tax  as  it  is 
now,  reaches  all  that  oug"ht  to  be  taxed.  Perhaps  some  more 
distant  and  not  relatives  at  all  should  pay  more  than  the  five 
percent  >and  some   of     the  nearer  ones  should  pay  less. 

I  am  not  speaking*  this  to  oppose  the  proposition,  because 
I  believe  the  people  have  a  right  to  amend  their  Constitution 
whenever  or  however  they  please,  provided  it  does  not  destroy 
the  republican  form  of  g-overnment,  and  the  only  question,  as 
I  view  it,  is  whether  the  proposition  is  one  which  the  people 
desire  to  pass  upon.     If  it  is,  let  them  have  that  privilege. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — In  the  last  Convention  we  prepared 
an  amendment  permittins"  t>>*^  +i^'atir.7i  of  inheril-.nces  and 
franchises.  It  was  the  evident  intention  of  that  Convention 
to  submit  an  amendment  broad  enough  to  enable  the  legisla- 
ture to  pass  a  graduated  inheritance  tax.  The  amendment  was 
passed  back  and  forth  from  the  Convention  to  the  legislative 
Committee  several  times  to  make  sure  of  that.  It  appears 
from  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  that  the  Convention 
did  not  accomplish  what  it  desired  to  accomplish  at  that  time, 
and  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton  is 
to  cure  that  defect.  I  do  not  know  that  any  assurance  can 
be  given  to  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  as  to  what  the 
legislature  will  do.  We  cannot  legislate  in  a  Constitutional 
Convention;  we  can  only  provide  for  general  and  fundamental 
principles.  Now,  then,  if  this  Convention,  representing  the 
people,  desires  to  have  a  graduated  inheritance  tax,  collateral 
or  direct,  with  exemptions  that  exist  in  other  states  so  that 
small  estates  are  not  taxed,  so  that  certain  amounts  coming  to 
the  widows  and  minor  children  can  be  exempt,  this  amend- 
ment provides  for  that  result.  As  to  the  effect  of  an  inheri- 
tance tax,  when  the  first  measure  was  proposed  to  the  New 
Hampshire  legislature  under  the  amended  Constitution  it 
was  thought  that  fifty  thousand  dollars  on  a  collateral  in- 
heritance tax  of  five  percent  would  be  a  large  revenue.  It 
has,  however,  averaged,  I  think,  more  than  one  hundred  thou- 
sand a  year  since  that  time.  It  has  been  a  source  of  revenue 
that  we  needed;  it  has  been  collected  easily,  and  it  is  a  tax 
that  prevails  in  most  of  the  states  of  the  Union,  only  they  have 
a  direct  tax  as  well  as  a  collateral  tax.  Now  this  amendment 
simply  enables  the  legislature  to  provide  for  a  graduated  in- 
heritance tax,  with  exemptions  for  the  widow  and  minor 
children,  as  in  the  opinion  of  the  legislature  should  be 
exempted. 


72      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Davis  of  j!sew  Ipswich. — While  we  are  considering-  this 
resolution,  which  it  seems  to  me  is  a  very  worthy  and  desir- 
able one,  ought  we  not  to  consider  briefly  what  is  happening 
in  other  states  where  it  has  been  adopted,  or  at  least,  a  similar 
one,  and  that  is  this:  It  is  found  that  holders  of  vast  proper- 
ties, where  the  inheritance  tax  is  a  measure  adopted,  are  now 
proceeding  to  dispose  of  these  properties  before  death  to  im- 
mediate relatives  and  so  escaping  this  taxation.  I  mention 
this  briefly,  thinking  perhaps  we  ought  to  consider  it  while 
we  are  considering  this'  measure. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Xewport^  that  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  do  now  rise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention 
that  the  resolution  be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention, — 

The  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair). 

Mr.  Hall  of  Dover,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to 
whom  was  referred  Eesolution  No.  6,  Relating  to  Grading  of 
Inheritance  Taxes  and  Exemptions,  having  considered  the 
resolution,  report  the  same  with  the  recommendation  that 
the  resolution  be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  report  was  accepted,  resolution  adopted  and  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the 
People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Pattee  of  Manchester  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Resolution  No.  22. 

Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Resolved,  That  Part  Second,  Article  9  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "eighteen  hundred," 
in  the  eighth  line  of  said  article  and  inserting  in  place 
thereof  the  words  "three  thousand;"  and  by  striking  out  the 
words  "twelve  hundred  "  in  the  tenth  line  of  said  section, 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  "twenty-four  hun- 
dred," so  that  said  section,  as  amended,  shall  read: 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  73 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state^  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census  of 
the  stateTTaken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this 
state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  three  f>^n]isaTid.^a3ii2iL, 
inhabitants  may  elect  tw^o  representatives;  and  so  proceeding 
in  that  proportion,  making  twenty-four  hundred  such  in- 
habitants the  mean  increasing  number  of  any  additional 
representative;  provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or 
the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or 
city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census;  and 
provided  further,  that,  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since 
the  last  census  have  been  divided  or  had  their  boundaries  or 
ward  lines  changed,  the  General  Court  in  session  next  before 
these  amendments  shall  take  effect  shall  equitably  apportion 
representation  in  such  manner  that  the  number  shall  not  be 
greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such  division  or 
alteration  been  made. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Pattee  of  Manchester,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Pattee  of  Manchester  submitted  certain  statistics,  ex- 
planatory of  Resolution  No.  22,  Relating  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  moved  that  the  same  be  laid  on  the 
table  with  the  resolution,  printed  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  Resolution  No.  2,  Relating  to  the  Senate,  and 
Resolution  No.  19,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 


74      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

In  Ca:MMiTTE'E  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Lamhert  of  Manchester. — There  is  another  proposition  in 
regard  to  the  Senate,  making-  the  Senate  31. 

The  Chainnan. — This  has  been  referred  to  the  Legislative 
Committee. 

.  Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester.— ^Of  course  if  we  are  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole  we  cannot  recall  it,  but  it  seems  we  oug-ht  to 
take  them  all  up  at  once. 

The  Chairman. — The  Chair  rules  that  it  is  not  before  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  at  the  present  session,  and  it  cannot 
be  broug-ht  from  the  Committee  to  which  it  has  been  referred. 
The  subjects  now  before  the  Committee  for  consideration  are 
the  two  resolutions  read. 

Mr.  Cavana/ugh  of  Manchester. — I  understand  there  is  another 
resolution  relating-  to  the  make-up  of  the  Senate  which  has 
g-one  to  the  same  Committee.  Is  there  any  objection  to  that 
being  considered  here  at  this  time  with  these  two  which  are 
properly  before  the  Committee   of   the  Whole? 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. — As  I  understand  the  situation,  the 
proposed  amendment,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Fitzwil- 
liam,  Mr.  Blake,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department.  The  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Blake  simply 
changes  the  number  of  the  Senate  from  24  to  31.  The  two 
which  are  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  have  both  an 
entirely  different  effect  from  that  of  the  one  proposed  by  Mr. 
Blake  of  Fitzwilliam.  The  Blake  amendment  simply  increases 
the  number  of  the  Senate  from  24  to  31.  That  offered  by  Mr. 
Hurd  of  Claremont,  which  is  before  this  Committee  now,  leaves 
the  number  at  24  but  strikes  out  of  the  Constitution  the  re- 
quirement that  the  senatorial  districts  be  based  on  taxes 
paid, — that  in  making  the  lines  of  the  senatorial  districts  the 
legislature  shall  not  be  governed  by  the  amount  of  direct 
taxes  paid, — and  divides  them  according  to  population.  The 
other  amendment,  that  offered  by  Mr.  Flint,  does  both  of 
these  things.  It  raises  the  number  of  the  Senate  from  24  to 
50,  and  it  also  provides  that  in  arranging  the  lines  of  the 
senatorial  districts  you  shall  not  consider  the  amount  of  direct 
taxes,  but  the  fifty  districts  shall  be  divided  equally  on  the 
basis  of  population. 

These  are  the  three  propositions  that  have  been  introduced. 
One  is  not  before  this  Committee  at  the  present  time,  and  we 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  75 

cannot  g-et  it  before  this  Committee  except  by  rising-  and 
reporting,  coming  into  Convention  again,  and  having  it  re- 
ferred here;  and  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  w^aste  of  time 
and  energy  for  the  Committee  to  do  that  when  you  have  got 
the  whole  proposition,  all  there  is  in  regard  to  the  Senate,  be- 
fore you  in  these  two  proposed  amendments,  and,  if  either  one 
of  these  amendments  which  you  are  considering"  here  should 
meet  the  favor  of  the  Committee  so  that  you  wanted  to  report 
favorably,  j^ou  can  report  it  as  it  has  been  introduced,  or  you 
can  put  on  any  kind  of  an  amendment  and  recommend  the 
passage  of  that  amendment,  so  whether  the  Blake  amendment 
is  before  you  or  not,  if  you  want  to  leave  things  just  as  they 
are  for  determining  the  lines  of  the  senatorial  districts  and 
increase  the  number  from  24  to  31,  you  can  do  that  by  an 
amendment  to  either  one  of  the  two  amendments  now  before 
the  Committee;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  whole  question 
here  is,  does  the  Committee  want  to  chang-e  the  Senate, — 
increase  the  Senate,  that  is  the  proposition,  to  increase  it. 
There   is  no   proposition  to  decrease  it. 

Do  you  want  to  increase  it  to  31  or  to  50?  Those  are  the 
two  propositions  presented.  If  you  do  want  to  increase  the 
number,  do  you  want  to  increase  it  and  leave  the  lines  of  the 
districts  to  be  determined  as  "at  the  present  time,  upon  the 
direct  tax  paid  by  each  district,  or  do  you  want  to  divide  it 
a/ccordmg-  to  population?  There  is  the  whole  thing-  in  a  nut- 
shell, that  is  before  the  Committee  in  all  three  of  the  amend- 
ments. 

Mr.  Hurd)  of  Clawmont. — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  the 
matter  has  been  so  clearly  stated  by  the  g-entleman  from 
Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  that  it  hardly  needs  further  explana- 
tion. The  sense  of  the  resolution  introduced  by  me,  which  I 
am  pleased  to  know  is  covered  by  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  merely  proposed  to  strike  out  the  clause  of  the 
present  article  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  that  in  mak- 
ing the  division  the  legislature  shall  be  governed  by  the  pro- 
portion of  direct  taxes.  The  object  in  striking  this  out,  as  Mr. 
Jones  has  clearly  said,  is  to  make  the  Senate,  so  far  as  the 
basis  of  representation  is  concerned,  a  purely  popular  assem- 
bly,— that  the  districts  should  be  made  up  by  a  count  of  quali- 
fied voters,  without  any  reference  to  whether  there  is  much 
or  little  taxable  property  in  that  district.  I  think  the  whole 
thing  can  be  condensed  in  a  phrase.  It  is  to  popularize  the 
Senate,  to  make  it  a  popular  assembly,  and  nothing  else.  As 
far  as  the  number  of  the  Senate  is  concerned,  this  is  a  matter 


76       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

I  do  not  wish  to  speak  about.  I  see  no  objection  to,  and  I 
see  some  arg^iments  for,  an  increase  of  the  upper  chamber, 
and  for  the  present  I  will  leave  this  matter  to  the  discussion 
of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Qitimby  of  ^jiaremont. — I  come  from  the  same  town  Mr. 
Hurd  does,  and  I  heartily  agree  with  what  he  has  said  in  regard 
to  changing  the  districts,  but  I  go  further  and  say  that  I  think 
that  the  people  that  we  represent  at  Ularemont  would  be  very 
much  pleased  to  have  the  Senate  increased.  Whether  50,  as 
proposed  by  one  of  these  resolutions,  is  the  right  number  I 
do  not  know,  but  I  think  that  it  is  very  evident  to  us  up  in 
that  end  of  the  state  that  it  would  be  better,  and  that  we 
would  get  perhaps  better  legislation  and  more  quickly,  by  in- 
creasing the  Senate,  and  therefore  I  hope,  (vdthout  going  into 
any  great  argument)  and  I  think  it  is  the  desire  of  the  con- 
stituency in  our  part  of  the  state,  that  the  Senate  shall  be  in-  . 
creased  to  at  least  40  and  possiblj^  50. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket. — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  I  can 
see  no  good  reason  for  increasing  the  Senate.  In  the  first 
place,  if  you  increase  the  members  of  the  Senate  from  24  to  31, 
40  or  50,  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  them?  We  shall  have 
to  build  another  addition  upon  the  State  house  to  accommo- 
date them,  unless  you  want  to  hang  them  up  on  the  wall.  Now 
it  has  been  said  in  the  past  that  you  can  control  them  easier 
if  they  are  a  small  number  than  you  can  if  they  are  a  larger 
number,  and  that  may  be  so,  but  until  some  good  reason  is 
brought  forward  for  increasing  the  Senate  from  24  to  31,  40  or 
50,  I,  Mr,  Chairman,  shall  be  opposed  to  any  such  increase. 
Ifr  costs  more,  and  you  are  trying  now  to  cut  down  the  number 
of  this  House,  and  when  the  proper  time  comes  I  shall  raise 
my  voice  against  the  cutting  down  of  the  membership  of  this 
House,  because  I  believe  that  money  cannot  be  better  spent  than 
in  sending  members  to  this  House  for  at  least  an  education, 
if  for  nothing  more.  So  far  as  the  large  representation  in  the 
House  is  concerned,  I  am  not  so  sure  but  that  it  is  good 
Democratic  doctrine,  and,  if  it  is,  I  most  heartily  approve  of 
that. 

Mr.  Lwnvprey  of  Tuftonborough. — >Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee,  this  subject  certainly  is  broad.  I  am  not  like 
the  gentleman  who  preceded  me  exactly.  I  believe  in  cutting 
down  the  House  and  increasing  the  Senate.  I  do  not  know, 
however,  about  increasing  it  to  fifty.  I  hardly  think  we 
should;  rather  make  it  36  or  40.  I  think  we  could  care  for 
that   number   in    the    senate    chamber    as    it   is    now.    You    all 


Thursday,  June  6,  1912.  77 

understand  very  well  that  it  is  easier  to  control  24  men  than  it 
would   be   36   or  40.     There   is   antagonism   between   our  House 
and  Senate  and  always  has  been,  and  the  nearer  their  numbers 
are  tog-ether  it  seems  to  me  the  less  antagonism  there  will  be. 
Now,  Gentlemen,  I  should  heartily  support  cutting  down  the 
House,  and  I  do  not  care  to  make  the  number  required  for  the 
first  representative  more  than  600    either.     I  would  not  object 
to  every  town  being  represented   here.     1  am  from  the  coun- 
try, a   small  town.     If  you   should  make  it  more  than  600  my 
town  would  not  have  representation.     You  may  say  that  I  am 
selfish.       I   am,   and   we   all   are.     Now  then,   I   believe   that  it 
should  go  something  like  this.     There  is  one  bill  in  here  that 
agrees  with  my  sentiments  on  this  matter  quite  well,  and  that 
is  the  one  which  starts  it  at  600,  then  next  2400,  and  so  on.     I 
believe  that  is  what  we  should  adopt.     It  would  cut  the  House 
down  pretty  nearly  as  well  as   we  might  expect   on  this  occa- 
sion.    We   have   got   to   submit    something   to    the    people    that 
they  will  adopt.     Now,  Gentlemen,  the  country  will  not  allow 
too  much  slaughtering.     There  are  over  100  towns  in  the  state 
that  have  between   600  and  800   population.     The    small  towns 
have  been  pro-rated  so  long  they  are  used  to  it,  and  I  do  not 
think  there  will  be  any  trouble  with  them.     They  will  be  will- 
ing to  keep  it  where  it  is.     I  will  not  take  up  any  more  time, 
but  it  will  be  brought  up  later  when  I  am  better  prepared. 

Mr.  Barney  of  Canaan. — I  would  like  to  say  just  a  word  at 
this  time.  I  was  brought  up  on  a  farm,  and  when  we  har- 
nessed the  horse  to  go  to  work,  we  never  put  him  into  the 
cart  hind  end  to.  The  last  legislature,  in  response  to  a  de- 
mand of  the  people,  called  this  Constitutional  Convention,  and 
the  people  ratified  the  call.  The  principal  reason  why  this 
Convention  was  called  was  to  reduce  the  size  of  our  legisla- 
ture, and  get  rid  of  our  unwieldy  House.  Now  it  seems  to  me 
we  are  hitching  the  horse  into  the  cart  wrong  end  to  when 
we  talk  of  increasing  the  size  of  the  Senate  before  we  know 
what  we  are  going  to  do  about  decreasing  the  size  of  the 
House,  and  I  shall  certainly,  for  one,  vote  against  any  increase 
in  the  number  of  senators  until  I  see  some  reasonable  plan, 
some  rational  plan,  proposed  for  reducing  the  size  of  the 
House.  We  have  got  commissions  without  number  in  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire.  Two  or  three  are  born  every  session  of 
the  legislature,  and  we  do  not  want  to  create  any  more  office 
holders  unless  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  and  I  think  we  had 
better  go  slow  enough  to  find  out  if  we  are  going  to  have  less 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  before  we  make 
more  senators*  in  this  good  old  state   of  New  Hampshire. 


78       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford,  moved  that  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  do  now  rise,  report  progress  and  ask  leave  to  sit 
again. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Wadleigh, — 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — The  men  who  have  introduced  these 
resolutions  upon  these  subjects  are  not  here,  and  it  seems  to 
me  we  ought  to  hear  what  they  have  to  say  in  reg-ard  to  the 
resolutions.  And  ag-ain,  I  do  not  think  it  is  very  wise  for  this 
Convention,  or  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  recommend  resolu- 
tions or  adopt  them,  until  we  have  seen  them  in  print  or  writ- 
ing" and  thoug-ht  them  over.  I  am  sorry  that  we  have  passed 
a  single  resolution  here  before  it  was  printed,  and  I  hope  that 
we  shall  not  take  action  upon  any  other  resolution  until  it  is 
printed  and  looked  over  to  our  satisfaction.  For  that  reason 
I  make   this  motion. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Wadleigh  prevailed. 

In  Conyention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  2,  Relating  to  the  Sen- 
ate, and  Resolution  No.  19,  Relating  to  the  Senate,  report 
progress  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  leave  granted. 

Mr.  Hohhs  of  Wolfehoro. — Mr.  President,  I  rise  for  inquiry.  It 
seems  to  me  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  are  bringing  in 
resolutions  for  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  and  will  be 
doing  so  until  Tuesday  next  when  the  time  limit  is  up,  and 
many  of  these  questions,  many  of  these  resolutions,  that  have 
been  brought  in  will  probably  be  duplicated,  varied  somewhat, 
it  seems  to  me  there  ought  not  to  be  any  final  action  taken 
upon  them  until  after  the  time  limit  for  introducing  resolu- 
tions has  expired.  I  ask,  Mr.  President,  if  that  will  not  be  a 
better  and  more  intelligent  way  of  getting  at  this  matter,  that 
all  of  the  members  may  know  and  govern  themselves  accord- 
ingly, that  there  will  be  no  final  action  on  any  of  the  measures 
until  after  the  final   presentation   of  all   amendments. 


Thursday  June  6,  1912.  79 

The  President. — All  the  Chair  can  siig-gest  in  answer  to  the 
sug-g-estion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wolfeboro,  is  that  it  is  up  to 
the  Convention.     It  is  for  them  to  decide. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — If  the  gentleman  will  make  a  mo- 
tion to  that  effect  I  would  like  to  second  it. 

The  President. — The  Chair  would  rule  that  the  motion  would 
not  be  in  order.  I  think,  speaking  as  a  delegate  from  one  of 
the  constituencies,  I  think  the  action  taken  this  afternoon  on 
the  Senate  matter  was  eminently  proper,  and  that  was  to  con- 
sider it  and  let  everybody  talk  that  wanted  to  talk  and  was 
ready  to  talk,  and  then  take  the  matter  up  again  later.  I 
think  the  Convention  should  go  very  slowly  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  adopting  amendments  to  be  presented  to  the  peo- 
ple. It  is  well  to  discuss  and  discuss  early  and  as  long  as  is 
consistent  with  getting  through  sometime,  but  there  is  no 
occasion  for  hasty  action,  and  the  members  know  that  both 
of  the  proposed  amendments  which  were  favorably  looked 
upon  by  the  Convention  have  been  referred  to  a  Committee  and 
there  will  still  be  a  chance  for  the  Convention  to  act  upon 
those  questions  when  they  come  back  from  the  Committee.  So 
I  think  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  is  very  good,  that 
final  action  be  not  taken  upon  anything  until  after  Tuesday, 
while  new  matter  is  coming  in,  but  that  we  do  spend  our  time 
and  spend  it  to  advantage  in  discussing  the  various  proposi- 
tions. 

m  Committee  of  the  Whole  we  have  already  had  practically 
every  subject  upon  which  there  are  proposed  amendments. 
The  bulk  of  the  amendments  as  you  have  noticed  as  they  came 
in,  the  proposed  ones,  deal  with  the  size  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Then  there  was  the  tax  matter,  a  collateral  in- 
heritance tax,  and  there  is  one  about  justices  of  police  courts. 
Practically  that  covers  the  field  of  all  of  the  different  amend- 
ments of  which  there  have  been  some  twenty  odd  already 
introduced,  and  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  well  enough,  and 
the  time  could  be  advantageously  spent,  if  the  Convention 
should  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  take  up  the  matter 
of  the  size  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  talk  that  out 
and  advance  the  different  propositions  that  men  have.  There  is 
the  district  system  which  has  been  proposed,  there  is  the  town 
system  which  has  been  proposed,  and  there  are  about  15  dif- 
ferent ones  in  between.  Now  it  seems  to  me  there  is  subject 
matter  enough  for  discussion  for  the  rest  of  this  afternoon  and 
all  day  tomorrow,  and  the  men  who  want  to  talk  will  not  all 
have  a  chance  to  talk  on  them  even  then. 


80       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. — Mr.  President,  That  is  my  idea,  but 
I  would  like  to  have  it  understood  that  there  will  be  no  final 
action  taken  on  any  of  the  resolutions  until  after  Tuesday. 
I  am  heartily  in  lavor  of  discussing  all  these  matters,  but  I 
do  not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Canaan,  Mr.  Barney. 
The  point  at  issue  is,  can  we  have  an  understanding  here  so 
that  we  may  all  know  that  these  resolutions  are  not  to  be 
finally  acted  upon  until  after  Tuesday.  That  is  the  proposi- 
tion I  would  like  to  have  settled  if  possible. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  Resolution  No.  7,  Relating  to  Female  Suffrage. 

Question  being  on  the  motion, — 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  raised  the  point  that  the  motion 
was  not  in  order  for  the  reason  that  the  resolution  had  been 
laid  on  the  table. 

The  President  ruled  the  point  well  taken. 

Mr.  Biarton  of  Newport  moved  that  Resolution  No.  7, 
Relating  to  Female  Suffrage,  be  taken  from  the  table. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  called  for  a  division. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  withdrew  his  call  for  a  division. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 

adjourned  at  3.41  o'clock. 

FRIDAY,  June  7,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  ad- 
journment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  the  Rev.  Charles  C. 
Garland  of  Concord. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Younor  of  Manchester,  the  further  reading  was  dispensed 
with. 


Fkiday,  June  7,  1912.  81 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.   Leddy  of  Epping  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for 
Tuesday^  June  11,  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Bean  of  Franklin,  introduced  the  following  resolution: 


'& 


Resolution  No.  23. 

Relating  to  Pensions. 

Resolved,  That  Article  36  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  words  "and  never  for  more  than  one  year 
at  a  time/'  so  that  said  Article  36,  as  amended,  shall  read  as 
follows:  I 

Article  36.  Economy  being  a  most  essential  virtue  in  all 
states,  especially  in  a  young  one,  no  pension  should  be 
granted  but  in  consideration  of  actual  services;  and  such 
pensions  ought  to  be  granted  with  great  caution  by  the  legis- 
lature. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  French  of  Nashua  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  No.  24. 

To  Strike  Out  from  the  Bill  of  Eights  the  Words  "Protes- 
tant" and  "Evangelical." 

Resolved,  That  Article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the 
Constitution  be  amended  by  striking  out  in  lines  one  and 
two  of  the  first  paragraph  the  words  "rightly  grounded  on 
evangelical  principles/'  and  in  line  thirteen  of  the  same 
paragraph  the  word  "Protestant/'  so  that  as  amended  the 
said  Article  6  shall  read  as  follows: 

Aet.  6.  As  morality  and  piety  will  give  the  best  and 
greatest  security  to  government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts 
of  men  the  strongest  obligations  to  due  subjection,  and  as 
the   knowledge   of   these    is   most   likely   to   be    propagated 


82       JouRAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

through  a  society  by  the  institution  of  the  public  worship 
of  the  Deity  and  of  public  instruction  in  morality  and  religion, 
therefore,  to  promote  these  important  purposes,  the  people 
of  this  state  have  a  right  to  empower,  and  do  hereby  fully 
empower,  the  legislature  to  authorize,  from  time  to  time, 
the  several  towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  religious 
societies  within  this  state  to  make  adequate  provision^  at 
their  own  expense,  for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  pub- 
lic teachers  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality.  Provided,  not- 
withstanding, that  the  several  towns,  parishes,  bodies  cor- 
porate, or  religious  societies  shall  at  all  times  have  the  ex- 
clusive right  of  electing  their  own  public  teachers,  and  of 
contracting  with  them  for  their  support  and  maintenance. 
And  no  person  of  any  one  particular  sect  or  denomination 
shall  ever  be  compelled  to  pay  toward  the  support  of  the 
teacher  or  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect,  or  denomina- 
tion. And  every  denomination  of  Christians,  demeaning 
themselves  quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall  be 
equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law;  and  no  subordina- 
tion of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  shall  ever 
be  established  by  law.  And  nothing  herein  shall  be  under- 
stood to  affect  any  former  contracts  made  for  the  suppart  of 
the  ministry;  but  all  such  contracts  shall  remain  and  be  in 
the  same  state  as  if  this  Constitution  had  not  been  made. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  French  of  Nashua,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua, — 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  authorized  to  appoint  a 
special  committee  of  twenty,  each  county  bf  the  state  to  be 
represented  on  said  committee  by  at  least  one  member  of 
this  Convention.  Said  committee  when  appointed  shall 
consider  such  matters  relating  to  the  suffrage  of  women  as 
shall  be  referred  to  it  by  this  Convention. 

Said  committee  is  granted  the  free  use  of  this  hall  next 
Wednesday  and  Thursday  evenings  for  public  hearings  on 
any  matters  that  may  be  referred  to  them  for  consideration. 


FfiiDAY  June  7.  1912. 


88 


On  motion  of  Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester^ — 

Resolved,  That  the  President  appoint  two  special  commit- 
tees, one  on  mileage  and  one  on  finance,  each  committee  to 
consist  of  ten  members. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester^ — 

■    ■  Vi 

Resolved,  That  when  the  Convention  adjourn  this  fore- 
noon, it  be  to  meet  next  Tuesday,  June  11,  at  11  o'clock  in 
the  forenoon. 

The  President  announced  the  following  standing  com- 
mittees: 

0^  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Depahtment. 


Hall  of  Dover. 
Bales  of  Wilton. 
Fuller  of  Exeter. 
Buxton  of  Boscawen. 
Madden  of  Keene. 
Leddy  of  Epping. 
Gibson  of  Conway. 
Saltmarsh  of  Laconia. 
Bancroft  of  Concord. 
Blake  of  Fitzwilliam. 


Upham  of  Claremont. 
Hadley  of  Goffstown. 
Clement  of  "Warren. 
Norwood  of  Keene. 
McDonough  of  Manchester. 
Cavanaugh  of  Manchester. 
Pattee  of  Manchester. 
Bowker  of  Whitefield. 
Greeley  of  Nashua. 
Carroll  of  Warner. 


On  Legislative  Detahtmbnt. 


Lyford  of  Concord. 
Marris  of  Lancaster. 
Wason  of  Nashua. 
Fellows  of  Tilton. 
Barton  of  Newport. 
Whittemore  of  Dover. 
Martin  of  Concord. 
Evans  of  Gorham. 
Scammon  of  Exeter. 
DeMerritt  of  Durham. 


Lambert  of  Manchester. 
French  of  Moultonborough. 
G.  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke. 
Warren  of  Manchester. 
Cain  of  Keene. 
Stevens  of  Landaff. 
Carter  of  Lebanon. 
Wallace  of  Rochester. 
Mitchell  of  Portsmouth. 
Fessenden  of  Brookline. 


84       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


On  Judicial  Department. 


Mitchell  of  Concord. 
Parker  of  Nashua. 
Hamblett  of  Nashua. 
Ahbott  of  Wolfeboro. 
Corning  of  Concord. 
Folsom  of  Dover. 
Haines  of  Somersworth. 
Yeazey  of  Laconia. 
Faulkner  of  Keene. 
Fuller  of  Marlborough. 


Hurd  of  Claremont. 
Batchelder  of  Portsmouth. 
Hall  of  Salem. 
Haselton  of  Manchester. 
Smith  of  Peterborough. 
Crawford  of  Manchester. 
"Weeks  of  Ossipee. 
Sullivan  of  Berlin. 
Oakes  of  Lisbon. 
Cleaveland  of  Lancaster. 


On  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and 
Other  Proposed  Amendments. 


Eastman  of  Exeter. 
Guptill  of  Portsmouth. 
Bean  of  Belmont. 
Stone  of  Andover. 
Hurd  of  Dover. 
Rowe  of  Kensington. 
Clifford  of  Franklin. 
Young  of  Manchester. 
Dudley  of  Colebrook. 
Goss  of  Berlin. 


Foss  of  Dover. 
Craig  of  Marlow. 
Prescott  of  Laconia. 
Wentworth  of  Sandwich. 
Runnells  of  Nashua. 
Newton  of  Unity. 
Bailey  of  Littleton. 
Tripp  of  Epsom. 
Entwistle  of  Portsmouth. 
Woodbury  of  Manchester. 


On  Time  and  Mode  op  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendmeints  Agreed  to  By  the  Convention. 


Pillsbury  of  Londonderry. 
Shute  of  Wentworth. 
Abijah  Hollis  of  Concord. 
Newell  of  Surry. 
Johnson  of  Colebrook. 
Young  of  Laconia. 
Wilson  of  Manchester. 
Allen  Hollis  of  Concord. 
Keyes  of  Milford. 
Brown  of  Somersworth. 


Brooks  of  Claremont. 
Young  of  Easton. 
Moran  of  Nashua. 
Pattee  of  Stratford. 
Morse  of  Newmarket. 
Lamprey  of  Tuftonborough. 
Pressler  of  Keene. 
Shontell  of  Manchester. 
Rossiter  of  Claremont. 
Shaw  of  Salisbury. 


Friday,  June  7,  1912. 


85 


The  President  announced  the   following  special  commit- 
tees^ according  to  resolutions  previously  adopted: 

On  Wqman^s  Suffrage. 


Wihitcher  of  Haverhill. 
Wadleigh  of  Milford. 
Shepard  of  Derry. 
Boutwell  of  Hopkinton. 
Stone  of  Troy. 
Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. 
Main  of  Dover. 
Morrill  of  Gilford. 
Wight  of  Dummer. 
Wilkins  of  Henniker. 


McLane  of  Milford. 
Towle  of  i^orthwood. 
Neal  of  Dover. 
Shaw  of  Chichester. 
Farrand  of  Concord. 


Parsons  of  Gilmanton. 
Tarbell  of  Lyndeborough. 
Spaulding  of  Stoddard. 
Parker  of  Benton. 
Young  of  Charlestown. 
Pike  of  Stark. 
Sanborn  of  Fremont. 
Hill  of  Concord. 
Barney  of  Canaan. 
Donigan  of  Newbury. 

On  Finance. 

Morrill  of  Concord. 
Haslet  of  Hillsborough. 
Connor  of  Ward  10, 

Manchester. 
Demers  of  Manchester. 
Schiller  of  Manchester. 


Hay  den  of  Hollis. 
Pierce  of  Bennington. 
Wellman  of  'New  London. 
Patch  of  Francestown. 
Clark  of  Haverhill. 


On  Mileaoe. 

Wolf  of  Berlin. 

Eoedelsperger  of  Manchester. 
Biron  of  Manchester. 
Wesley  of  Dover. 
Chatel  of  Manchester. 


On  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  the  order  whereby  Eesolution  No.  9,  Eelat- 
ing  to  Tenure  of  Office  of  Certain  Officers,  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  be  vacated  and  the  same  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Department. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  11.31  o'clock. 


86       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

TUESDAY,  June  1.1,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  11  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  the  Eev.  Charles  C. 
Q-arland  of  Concord. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  the  further  reading  was  dispensed 
with. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Sutton  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for 
Tuesday  forenoon,  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Coming  of  Concord  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for 
Tuesday  and  Wednesday,  in  order  to  hold  Probate  Court. 

Mr.  Quimby  of  Claremont  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Rbsolution  No.  ^5. 

Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolved,  That  Article  24  of  Part  Second  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "twenty-four'' 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  word  "forty,"  so  that  said 
article  as  amended  shall  read: 

Abit.  24.  The  Senate  shall  consist  of  forty  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years  from  the  first 
"Wednesday  of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

That  Article  25  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "twenty-four"  and  in- 
serting in  place  thereof  the  word  "forty"  and  by  striking 
out  the  words  "The  proportion  of  direct  taxes  paid  by  the 
said  districts"  and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  "the 
population  of  said  districts,''  so  that  said  article  as  amended 
shall  read: 


Tuesday,  Jcjne  11,  1912.  87 

Art.  25.  And^  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  Senate^  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide 
the  state  into  forty  districts,  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be  with- 
out dividing  towns  and  unincorporated  places;  and  in  making 
this  division  they  shall  govern  themselves  by  the  population 
of  said  districts,  and  timely  make  known  to  the  inhabitants 
of  the  state  the  limits  of  each  district. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Quimby  of  Claremont,  the  -resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Newell  of  Surry,  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

RBaoLUTiON  No.  26. 

Relating  to  the  Election  of  Representatives  in  Cities  and 
Towns  of  Less  Than  800  Inhabitants. 

Resolved,  That  Article  10  of  the  Constitution  be  amended 
by  adding  thereto  as  follows: 

Contiguous  towns,  or  towns  and  wards  having  respectively 
less  than  eight  hundred  inhabitants,  but  whose  inhabitants 
in  the  aggregate  equal,  or  exceed  the  number  necessary  for 
one  representative,  may,  if  each  so  decides,  by  major  vote, 
in  meetings  called  for  that  purpose,  be  authorized  to  unite 
for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  representative;  and  the  votes 
of  such  united  towns,  or  wards  shall  be  cast,  returned, 
counted,  and  declared;  as  votes  for  senators  are  now  cast, 
returned,  counted  and  declared. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Newell  of  Surry,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Goss  of  Berlin,  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Resolution"  No.  27. 

Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives  and  Senate  and  the 
Compensation  of  the  Officers  and  Members  Thereof. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  9,  14,  24  and  25  of  Part  Second  of 


88      Journal  qf  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  be  amended 
by  striking  out  all  of  said  articles  and  inserting  •  in  place 
thereof  the  following: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  the  state  a 
represen'tation  of  the  people  by  the  election  bienially  of 
two  hundred  members,  founded  upon  principles  of  equality, 
and'  in  order  that  such  representation  will  be  as  equal  as  cir- 
cumstances will  admit,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time 
divide  the  sta^te  into  two  hundred  districts,  as  nearly  equal 
as  may  be,  on  the  basis  of  population  according  to  the  last 
preceding  census  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  State. 

Art.  24.  The  Senate  shall  consist  of  fifty  members,  who 
shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years,  from  the  first  Wednesday 
of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  senate^  the  legislature  shalL  from  time  to  time, 
divide  the  state  into  fifty  districts  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be^ 
on  the  basis  of  population  according  to  the  last  preceding 
census  of  the  United  States,  or  of  this  state. 

Art.  14.  The  presiding  officers  of  both  houses  of  the 
legislature  shall  severally  receive  out  of  the  State  Treasury  as 
compensation  in  full  for  their  services,  for  the  term  elected, 
the  sum  of  five  hundred  d'ollars,  and  all  other  members  there- 
of seasonably  attending  and  not  departing  without  license 
the  sum  of  four  hundred  dollars,  exclusive  of  mileage;  yro- 
vided,  however,  that  when  a  special  session  shall  be  called  by 
the  Governor,  such  officers  and  members  shall  receive  for  at- 
tendance an  additional  compensation  of  five  dollars  per  day 
for  a  period  not  exceeding  fifteen  days  and  the  usual  mileage. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

Mr.  Georore  "W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  introduced  the  fol- 
dowing  resolu'tion: — 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  89 

Resoit^tption  No.  28. 

Providing  for  Election  by  Plurality  Vote  of  the  Governor 
and  Other  Officiials. 

Resolved,  That  part  second  of  the  Constitution  be  amended 
as  follows:  part  second,  tittle  "Senate/'  article  thirty-two 
and  thirty-three,  article  forty-one,  title  "Executive  Power — 
Grovernor,"  and  article  sixty,  title,  "  Council,"  by  striking  out 
the  word  "  majority"  wherever  it  occurs  in  said  article,  and 
substituting  therefor  the  word  "  plurality." 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

'Mr.  H.  A.  Smith  of  Berlin,  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution. 

Resoltjtion-  No.  29. 

Relating  to  the  Recall. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  as  follows: — 
after  Art.  94  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  as  it  now 
stands,  insert  a  new  article,  which  shall  be  numbered  Art. 
95,  and  shall  be  as  follows: — 

Art.  95.  Every  public  officer  of  this  state,  holding  an 
elective  office,  either  by  election  or  appointment,  is  subject 
to  recall  from  such  office  by  the  qualified  voters  of  the  elec- 
torial  district  from  which  candidates  are  elected  to  such  office. 
A  petition  for  a  new  election  shall  be  signed  by  qualified 
voters  of  suc'h  district  in  number  not  less  than  twenty-five  per 
centum  of  the  number  of  votes  cast  at  the  last  preceding 
general  election  for  all  candidates  for  that  office  and  shall  be 
filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  provided,  however,  that  after 
one  recall  petition  and  election,  no  further  recall  petition 
shall  be  filed  against  the  same  officer,  unless  such  petitioners 
shall  pay  all  expenses  of  the  previous  recall  election. 

Re-number  Art  95,  as  it  now  stands,  making  it  Art.  96,  and 
likewise  re-number  all  succeeding  articles. 


90      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  H.  A.  Smith  of  Berlin,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord,  introduced  the  following 
refSolution: 

RESO'LtJTIOJN^  No.   30. 

Relating  to  County   Officers. 

Resolved,  That  Article  70  of  the  Constitution,  Part 
Second,  t)e  so  amended  as  to  read  as  follows: 

The  County  treasurers,  registers  of  probate,  solicitors 
sheriffs,  registers  of  deeds  and  other  county  officers  shall 
be  chosen  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  may  from  time 
to  time  direct. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord,  introduced  the  following 
resolution: 

RBSOLtPTION  No.  31. 

Relating  to  Approval  of  Bills. 

Resolved,  That  Article  43  of  the  Constitution,  Part 
Second,  be  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  fol- 
lowing: 

"The  governor  may  in  like  manner  return  any  bill  mak- 
ing an  appropriation  without  his  approval  as  to  any  it'im 
or  items  of  appropriation  or  as  to  any  part  of  any  such  item 
or  items.'* 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  introduced  the  following 
resolution: 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  91 

Kesqltjtion  No.  32. 

Amending  Article  5,  Section  2,  of  the  Constitution,  Estab- 
lishing Betterment  Laws. 

Resolved,  That  Article  5,  Part  Second,  he  amended  by 
inserting  after  the  word  "laws''  in  the  fourth  line  of  said 
article  the  words  "including  betterment  laws/'  so  that  said 
article  as  amended  shall  read: 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are 
hereby  given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court,  from 
time  to  time,  to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of 
wholesome  and  reasonable  orders,  laws,  including  better- 
ment laws,  statutes,  ordinances,  directions  and  instructions, 
either  with  penalties  or  without,  so  as  the  same  be  not  re- 
pugnant or  contrary  to  this  Constitution,  etc. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legis- 
lative Department. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff,  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Re&0'I;ution  ^o.  33. 

Relating  to  Taxation. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking 
out  in  Article  5,  Part  2,  the  words  "proportional  and''  in 
the  nineteenth  line  of  said  section,  and  the  words  "upon  all 
the  inhabitants  of,  and  residents  within,  said  state,  and 
upon  all  estates  within  the  same"  in  the. nineteenth,  twenti- 
eth and  twenty-first  lines  of  said  section,  so  that  soid  sec- 
tion shall  read  as  follows: 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are 
hereby  given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court  from 
time  to  time,  to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner 
of  wholesome  and  reasonable  orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordi- 
nances, directions,  and  instructions,  either  with  penalties 
or  without,  so  as  the  same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary 


92      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

to  this  Constitution,  as  they  may  judge  for  the  benefit  and 
welfare  of  this  state  and  for  the  governing  and  ordering 
thereof  and  of  the  subjects  of  the  same,  for  the  necessary 
support  and  defense  of  the  government  thereof;  and  to  name 
and  settle  biennially,  or  provide  by  fixed  laws  for  the  nam- 
ing and  settling  all  civil  officers  within  this  state,  such  of- 
ficers excepted  the  election  and  appointment  of  whom  are 
hereafter  in  this  form  of  government  otherwise  provided 
for;  and  to  set  forth  the  several  duties,  powers,  and  limits 
of  the  several  civil  and  military  officers  of  this  state,  and 
the  forms  of  such  oaths  or  affirmations  as  shall  be  respective- 
ly administered  unfo  them  for  the  execution  of  their  sev- 
eral offices  and  places,  so  as  the  same  be  not  repugnant  or 
contrary  to  this  Constitution;  and,  also,  to  impose  fines, 
mulcts,  imprisonments,  and  other  punishments;  and  to  im- 
pose and  levy  reasonable  assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  to  be 
issued  and  disposed  of  by  warrant,  under  the  hand  of  the 
governor  of  this  state  for  the  time  being,  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  council,  for  the  public  service,  in  the 
necessary  defense  and  support  of  the  government  of  this 
state  and  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  subjects 
thereof,  according  to  such  acts  as  are  or  shall  be  in  force 
within  the  same.  Provided,  that  the  General  Court  shall  not 
authorize  any  town  to  loan  or  give  its  money  or  credit,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  for  the  benefit  of  any  corporation  having 
for  its  object  a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in  any  way  aid  the 
same  by  taking  its  stock  or  bonds. 

Resolved,  further,  that  Article  6,  Part  2,  be  amended  by 
striking  out  all  of  said  section  and  inserting  in  place  thereof 
the  following: 

The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part  thereof  may 
be  raised  by  taxation.  The  subjects  of  taxation  may  be 
divided  according  to  their  kind  or  value  into  classes  dif- 
ferently taxed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  93 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

KesO'LTjtion  No.  34. 

Eelating  to  the  Election  of  Officials  hy  Plurality  Vote. 

Resolved,  That  all  public  officers  who,  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, are  required  to  be  chosen  by  a  majority  vote,  shall  be 
chosen  hereafter  by  plurality  vote,  and  all  articles,  or  parts 
of  articles,  of  the  Constitution  inconsistent  herewith,  are 
here'by  repealed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
iton: 

RESOLtrTiON  No.  35. 

Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Resolved,  That  Article  9  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  striking  out  of  the  sixth  line  the  word 
'^six"  and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  word  "eight;"  by 
striking  out  of  the  eighth  line  thereof,  the  word  "eighteen," 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  word  "twenty-four;"  by 
striking  out  of  the  tenth  line  thereof  the  word  "twelve,^'  and 
inserting  in  the  place  thereof  the  word  "sixteen;"  and  that 
Article  10  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  word  "six"  wherever  it  shall  occur,  and 
by  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  word  "eight,"  so  that  these 
articles  shall  read  as  follows: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  the  ^ate,  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  the  principles  of  equality;  and,  in  order  that  such 
representation  may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit, 
every  town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards 
of  cities  having  eight  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general 
census  of  the  state,  may  elect  one  represenfative ;  if  jwenty- 
four  hundred^  such  inhabitants,   may   elect  two  representa- 


94      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

tives;  and  so  proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  sixteen 
hundred  such  inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any 
additional  representative.  Provided,  that  no  town  shall  be 
divided  or  the  boundaries  of  any  ward  of  any  city  so  altered 
as  to  increase  the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such 
town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census; 
and  provided  further,  that  to  those  towns  and  cities  which 
since  the  last  census  have  been  divided  or  had  their  bound- 
aries or  ward  lines  changed^  the  General  Court  in  session 
next  before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect,  shall  equit- 
ably apportion  representation  in  such  manner  that  the  num- 
ber shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such 
division  or  alteration  been  made. 

Art.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward  shall 
have  less  than  eig'ht  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  General 
Court  shall  authorize  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and 
send  to  the  General  Court  a  representative  such  propor- 
tionate part  of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants 
shall  bear  to  eight  hundred;  but  the  General  Court  shall  not 
authorize  any  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send 
such  representative,  except  as  herein  provided. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Buxton  of  Boscawen,  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

RESOLtlTION    No.    36. 

Eelating  to  the  Election  of  Officials  by  a  Plurality  of  Votes. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  as  to  pro- 
vide that  in  all  elections  of  civil  officers  by  the  people  of  thia 
state,  whose  election  is  provided  for  by  the  Constitution,  the 
person  having  the  highest-  number  of  votes  shall  be  deemed 
and  declared  to  be  elected. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  96 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Eesoltjtion  No.  37. 

Eelating  to  Income  Tax. 

Resolved,  That  Article  6,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  word  "including"  the 
following:  "incomes,  the  taxes  on  which  may  be  graduated 
and  progressive  with  reasonable  exemptions/'  so  that  said 
article  as  amended  shall  read  as  follows: 

Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls^  estates^  and 
other  classes  of  property,  including  incomes,  the  taxes 
on  which  may  be  graduated  and  progressive  with  reasonable 
exemptions^  franchises  and  property  when  passing  by  will 
and  inheritance;  and  there  shall  be  a  valuation  of  the  es- 
tates within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in  every  five  years, 
at  least,  and  as  much  of tener  as  the  General  Court  shall  order. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton,  the  resolution  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warren,  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

RESOLurrOiN  No.  38. 

Relating  to  Corporation  Salaries  and  Dividends. 

Resolved,  That  Article  10  of  the  Constitution,  Part  First, 
be  amended  by  adding  as  follows:  the  legislature  may  fix 
maximum  salaries  of  corporation  officers  and  of  dividend 
payments,  that  the  public  may  be  benefited  by  lower  prices. 
The  legislature  may  forbid  corporations  to  overvalue  their 
properties  by  overissue  of  stocks  and  bonds  and  affix  penal- 
ties for  the  violation  thereof. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clement  of  Warren,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portmouth  introduced  the  following 
resolution : 


96      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention.    - 

Re'Soltjtion  No.  39. 
Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  Lands. 

Resolved,  That  Article  5,  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  inserting  in  the  twenty-second  line  of  said 
article  after  the  words  "and  upon  all  the  estates  within  the 
same"  the  following:  "except  wild  and  forest  lands^  stocks, 
stock  in  public  funds,  bonds,  money  at  interest,  and  any 
other  intangible  property,  any  of  which  may  be  specially  as- 
sessed and  rated;  and  also  to  impose  and  levy  an  income  tax 
(not  exceeding  ten  per  cent)  on  the  income  from  any  or  all 
the  kinds  or  classes  of  intangible  property  last  mentioned, 
and  it  may  graduate  the  tax  according  to  the  amount  of  the 
income  and  may  grant  reasonable  exemptions;  provided,  that 
if  such  tax  be  levied  on  the  income  from  any  such  intangible 
property  no  other  tax  shall  be  levied  on  such  stocks,  stock  in 
public  funds,  bonds,  money  at  interest,  or  other  intangible 
property  against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof."  So  that  the 
article  as  amended  shall  read  in  part  as  follows: 

Aht.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are  here- 
by given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court,  from  time 
to  time  ...  to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and  reason- 
able assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants 
of,  and  residents  within,  the  said  state  and  upon  all  the 
estates  within  the  same,  except  wild  and  forest  lands,  stocks, 
stock  in  public  funds,  bonds,  money  at  interest,  and  any 
other  intangible  property,  any  of  whic'h  may  be  specially  as- 
sessed and  rated;  and  also  to  impose  and  levy  an  income  tax 
(not  exceeding  ten  per  cent)  on  the  income  from  any  or  all 
the  kinds  or  classes  of  intangible  property  last  mentioned 
and  it  may  graduate  the  tax  according  to  the  amount  of  the 
income  and  may  grant  reasonable  exemptions;  pro^nded,  that 
if  such  tax  be  levied  on  the  income  from  any  such  intangible 
property  no  other  tax  shall  be  levied  on  such  stocks,  stock  in 
public  funds,  bonds,  money  at  interest,  or  any  other  intan- 
gible property  against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  97 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth,  introduced  the  following 
resolution: 

RbsouuttOiN  No.  40. 

Relating  to  County  Commissioners. 

Resolved,  That  Article  70'  of  Part  Second  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  the  addition  of  the  following: 

At  the  biennial  election  held  in  November,  1914,  the  elec- 
tors of  the  several  counties  shall  elect  three  county  commis- 
sioners, who  shall  hold  office  for  two,  four  and  six  years  re- 
spectively, and  at  each  biennial  election  thereafter,  one 
county  commissioner,  who  shall  hold  office  for  a  term  of  six 
years.  The  county  commissioners  elected  under  this  article 
shall  elect  the  county  treasurer,  who  shall  hold  office  at  their 
pleasure. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth,  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua, — 

Resolved,  That  Resolution  No.  7,  Relating  to  Female  Suf- 
frage, be  taken  from  the  table  and  referred  to  the  Special 
Committee  on  Woman's  Suffrage. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  that  the  Conven- 
tion resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  subject  of 
representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  same 
being, — 

Resolution  No.  1,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  13,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 


98      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

Eesolution  Xo.  14,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Eepresenta- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  15,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  18^  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  22,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  26,  Relating  to  Election  of  Representa- 
tives in  Cities  and  Towns  of  less  than  800  Inhabitants. 

Resolution  Xo.  35,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford, — 

Mr.  Crawford  of  MancTwster. — I  would  like  to  inquire  if  this 
discussion  will  not  include  the  question  of  increasing  the 
Senate?  Being-  so  closely  united,  it  seems  to  me  that  both 
questions  should  be  taken  up  together,  not  simply  the  House, 
but  both  branches  of  the  legislature. 

The  President. — The  Chair  will  be  obliged  to  rule  that  under 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  only  the  subject  of 
representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives  will  be  prop- 
erly before  the  Committee.  An  amendment  to  the  motion  will 
be  proper,  if  that  is  the  desire  of  the  members,  but,  as  the 
motion  stands,  only  the  matter  of  representation  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  will  be  under   consideration. 

Mr.  Upham  of  Claremont  moved  to  amend  the  foregoing 
motion  so  that  it  shall  include  all  resolutions  relating  to 
representation  in  the  Senate,  the  same  being, — 

Resolution  Xo.  2,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolution  Xo.  19,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

.Resolution  Xo.  25,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment, — 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  99 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  as  amended, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Committee  oe  the  Whole. 

(Mr.   Scammon  of  Exeter  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Hnrd  of  Claremont  moved  that  Resolution  No.  19, 
Relating  to  the  Senate,  be  reported  to  the  Convention,  that  it 
is  inexpedient  to  adopt. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Neivell  of  Surry. — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  I  am 
well  aware  that  the  subject  which  is  now  under  consideration, 
is  one  of  difficulty.  It  has  been  my  privilege  to  be  a  member 
of  three  Constitutional  Conventions,  and  in  the  two  past  Con- 
ventions this  same  subject  has  been  brought  up  for  considera- 
tion. In  the  Convention  of  1889,  an  amendment  was  intro- 
duced by  the  late  Hon.  Charles  J.  Amidon  of  Hinsdale,  bear- 
ing upon  this  same  subject.  That  is,  that  every  town  and 
ward  in  the  state  should  have  one  representative,  the  same  as 
has  been  introduced  in  this  Convention  by  the  gentleman  from 
Langdon,  Mr.  Winch.  It  is  my  privilege  at  this  time  to  repre- 
sent one  of  the  smaller  towns  in  this  state,  a  town  that  was 
represented  in  the  Convention  of  1876  and  in  1889  by  the  late 
Hon.  George  K.  Harvey. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  any  proposition  that  we  may,  at  this 
time,  present  to  this  Convention  will  not  be  satisfactory  to  all 
concerned.  It  seems  to  be  admitted  that  those  who  founded 
the  government  of  our  state  did  their  work  well.  In  the 
town  system  we  have  the  actual  existence  of  representative 
government.  The  proportionate  system  which  gives  a  large 
representation  to  the  towns  has  worked  well.  Does  any  one 
pretend  to  say  that  on  the  whole  the  legislatures  of  New 
Hampshire  have  not  acted  wisely  in  the  various  laws  which 
they  have  passed?  Does  not  the  legislation  of  our  state  com- 
pare favorably  ^vith  that  of  other  states?  I  contend,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  that  the  legislation  of 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire  is  superior  to  any  other  New 
England  state.  I  believe  in  a  large  House  of  Kepresentatives, 
a  House  of  300  members,  and  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  the 


100    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

people  of  New  Hampshire  want  a  House  of  that  size.  It  is  no 
good  reason  because  Massachusetts,  or  some  other  st:ate,  has 
a  district  system  that  we  should  pattern  after  it.  It  is  our 
privilege  to  do  things  in  our  own  way.  That  we  should  formu- 
late some  plan  that  will  make  a  reasonable  reduction  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  is  what  is  expected  of  us,  and  it  is 
what  we  are  here  for.  As  one  of  the  delegates  from  a  pro- 
rated town,  that  has  been  pro-rated  or  classed  for  thirty-four 
years, — and  we  have  become  accustomed  to  being  a  pro-rated 
town, — I  would  like  to  see  the  present  basis  of  600  inhabitants 
for  the  first  representative  and  2400  for  an  additional  repre- 
sentative adopted.  But  I  believe  that  a  proposition  so  one- 
sided would  never  be  ratified  by  the  voters  of  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire.  The  towns  must  concede  something,  and  a  change 
of  basis  from  six  to  eight  hundred  is  a  reasonable  concession 
on  the  part  of  the  towns.  I  have  prepared  a  table,  which  has 
been  submitted  to  the  Convention,  and  I  believe  that  most  of 
you  have,  or  ought  to  have,  a  copy  of  it.  You  will  find  in  the 
summary  on  the  last  page,  the  number  of  representatives 
which  each  county  will  have  on  this  basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  two  thousand  for  each  additional,  and  you  will  find  in 
each  of  the  counties  an  explanation  at  the  top  of  the  page  as 
to   the  three  columns  of  figures. 

Rockingham    County    will   have    41    and    62/800ths. 

Strafford  County,  26  and  24/800ths. 

Belknap  County,  15  and  364/800ths. 

Carroll  County,  13  and  664/800ths. 

Merrimack    County.   37   and   363/800ths. 

Hillsborough    County,    73   and    594/800ths. 

Cheshire  County,  22  and   60/800ths. 

Sullivan  County,   14  and  284/800ths. 

Grafton  County,  31   and  645/800ths. 

Coos  County,   21   and  83/800ths. 

The  total  for  the  state  is  296  and  743/800ths,  or  practically 
297. 

There  are  ten  towns  which  have  a  population  of  between 
seven  and  eight  hundred  that  are  reckoned  as  having  one 
representative  in  this  table,  including  Brentwood  778,  North 
Hampton  783,  Gilford  744,  Moultonborough  783,  Epsom  725, 
Rindge  706,  Alstead  711,  Westmoreland  758,  Chesterfield  770, 
Warren  701.  The  aggregate  population  which  is  reckoned  in 
this  table  is  7439.  In  this  table  these  towns  divided  by  800  will 
have  9  and  236/800ths  representatives.  In  the  apportionment 
which  has  been  a  precedent  in  the  past,  and  will  probably  be 
followed  in  the  future,  these  ten  towns  would  have  one  repre- 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  101 

sentative  each.  The  census  of  1910  g-ives  the  number  of  towns 
less  than  600,  principally  pro-rated  towns,  as  86.  The  number  of 
pro-rated  towns  in  the  census  of  1900  was  71.  The  increase 
in  the  number  of  pro-rated  towns  in  1910  over  1900  was  15. 
There  is  a  paper,  which  has  been  widely  circulated  in  this  state, 
that  gives  the  number  of  towns  now  pro-rated  as  75  and 
states  that  a  change  of  basis  from  six  to  eight  hundred  for 
the  first  representative,  would  pro-rate  40  more.  The  number 
now  pro-rated  is  actually  86.*^  The  actual  situation  is  that 
under  the  basis  of  SOO  for  the  first  representative,  there  will 
be  actually  22;  that  is,  if  the  precedent  that  has  ruled  in  the 
towns  under  the  present  census,  subtracted  from  118  will  be 
32.  As  I  have  stated,  there  are  ten  towns,  which  as  they  have 
been  apportioned,  will  send  a  representative,  lacking  so  little 
of  the  800,  and  that  will  leave  only  22.  Therefore,  you  see 
this  statement  is  somewhat  out  of  the  way.  There  are  only 
two  more  than  half  as  many  towns  that  will  be  pro-rated  under 
this  apportionment.  It  states  there  are  forty,  when  there  will 
be  actually  22;  that  is,  if  the  precedent  that  has  ruled  in  the 
past  is  followed  in  the  future.  Gentlemen  from  the  pro-rated 
towns,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  any  proposition  is  to  be  ratified 
by  the  people,  there  must  be  a  concession  on  your  part;  no 
one-sided  proposition  will  ever  be  ratified  by  the  voters  of  the 
State  of  New  Hampshire.  I  understand  under  the  present  cen- 
sus,— I  have  not  figured  it, — that  there  will  be  410  representa- 
tives in  the  next  House.  A  House,  on  this  proposed  basis, 
giving  298  representatives,  will  be  a  reduction  of  112.  If  the 
present  ratio  of  representation  continues,  and  the  House  con- 
tinues to  grow  as  it  has  for  the  last  twenty  years,  the  time  is 
coming, — it  is  certain, — when  the  district  system  will  sooner  or 
later  be  adopted  by  the  people  of  'New  Hampshire,  and  the 
proportionate  system,  which  has  been  so  favorable  to  the 
towns,  will  be  at  an  end. 

Mr.  Batchelder  of  Portsmouth. — In  connection  with  this  sub- 
ject of  representation,  I  should  like  to  speak  just  a  word  in  re- 
gard to  the  pamphlet  printed  in  connection  with  amendment 
number  18,  which  was  distributed  some  time  last  week.  My  at- 
tention was  first  struck  by  the  remarkable  fact  that  on  page  13 
it  was  stated  that  Resolution  No.  18  resulted  in  a  net  loss 
to  the  whole  state  of  18,  being  the  difference  between  thirty- 
seven  net  loss  and  nineteen  net  gain,  but  that  the  result  ou 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives  was  to  reduce  it  from  405, — I 
think  it  is  not  410,  under  the  new  apportionment, — to  350. 
That  is,  there  is  a  loss  of  55.  On  examination  I  find  that  my 
own   county  of  Rockingham,   for  instance,    is  reduced   from   51 


102    Journal  of  Constitutional  Contjcntion. 

to  46,  yet  it  is  in  this  schedule  as  gaining  7,  and  there  are  a 
number  of  mistakes  through  it.  Two  towns,  Kingston  and 
Merrimack,  are  entirely  omitted.  I  have  not  had  time  to 
analyze  it  thoroughly,  but  I  have  the  impression  that  the 
figures  are  inaccurate  throughout.  It  is  grossly  inaccurate  in 
regard  to  the  total  net  loss,  because  there  is  no  possible 
mathematical  figuring  by  which  you  can  reduce  the  House  55 
without  distributing  a  like  loss  throughout  the  sta*e. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — I  do  not  desire  to  encroach  upon 
the  time  of  this  Committee,  but  I  will  ask  for  a  few  moments. 
When  I  first  came  to  this  Convention  I  formed  a  strong  de- 
termination in  my  own  mind  that  I  would  occupy  its  time 
but  a  small  portion,  compared  with  what  I  expected  some 
others  would  occupy.  I  feel  a  great  deal  like  a  client  I  had 
up  in  Coos  County,  tried  in  Strafford  before  a  referee.  \Mien 
we  got  the  evidence  pretty  much  all  in,  the  parties  concluded 
that  we  lawyers  might  sit  back  and  they  would  finish  their 
own  case.  We  did  so,  and  my  client  arose  to  address  the 
Court,  and  he  said:  "Your  Honor,  what  is  the  use  of  my  wast- 
ing my  precious  idle  moments  'disgusting'  this  question?" 
Now,  I  am  willing  to  waste  my  "precious  idle  moments,"  but 
I  do  not  wish  to  do  so  to  the  "disgust"  of  the  members  of  this 
Committee,  and  I  would  suggest  that  during  the  few  moments 
I  am  occupying  your  time  our  "stenographette"  should  cease 
making  her  hieroglyphics  and  devote  her  time  to  sharpening 
pencils  to  report  the  sayings  of  the  four  hundred  who  may 
desire  to  discuss  the  question  before  you. 

I  do  not  come  here  with  any  plan  to  fix  a  definite  number 
in  the  House  or  in  the  Senate.  Certainly  the  conditions  that 
exist  in  this  state  demand  a  reduction  in  the  House.  With  all 
the  measures  that  are  before  the  Convention,  or  before  this 
Committee,  some  way  should  be  devised  by  which  the  small 
towns  can  be  protected,  and  the  cities  and  larger  towns  not 
be  deprived  of  a  fair  representation.  If  we  should  adopt  the 
ratio  of  six  hundred  for  the  first  representative  as  it  exists 
now,  none  of  the  country  towns  will  be  deprived  of  any  of 
their  representation.  Then  take  the  second  ratio  of  2400,  and 
the  larger  towns,  perhaps,  that  now  have  three  would  have 
two.  The  towns  of  3,000  would  have  2.  The  cities  would  have 
less  than  they  do  now,  but,  while  that  ratio  is  extended  over 
the  whole  state,  it  is  fair  and  equal  to  all,  both  large  towns  and 
the  cities.  Now  as  the  matter  is  before  you,  all  the  resolu- 
tions are  open,  not  only  for  discussion,  but  for  amendments 
and  suggestions,  that  some  resolution  may  be  prepared  that 
will  embrace  the    wishes   of  the   majority  of  this   Committee; 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  103 

and  I  wish  it  mig-ht  embrace  all,  so  that  when  this  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  there  will  be  no  dang-er  but  that  it  may  be 
adopted.  The  opposition  which  was  raised  to  an  increase  in 
the  Senate  the  last  time  this  was  discussed  was  when  the  gen- 
tleman from  Newmarket,  Mr.  Morse,  suggested  that,  if  you 
increased  the  Senate,  it  would  necessitate  an  appropriation  for 
another  enlargement  of  this  Capitol.  You  will  remember  when 
the  question  of  building  a  new  Capitol  or  enlarging  this  was 
before  the  legislature,  Manchester  in  its  liberality  offered  one 
million  dollars  for  the  erection  of  the  new  Capitol,  provided  it 
should  be  located  on  one  of  the  public  squares  in  that  city. 
This  proposition,  Gentlemen,  was  rejected,  as  every  one  sup- 
posed  it  would  be. 

We  are  here  for  the  purpose  of  proposing  such  amendments 
to  our  Constitution  as  will  benefit  our  state,  and  satisfy,  not 
only  the  small  towns,  but  the  cities  and  the  larger  towns.  I 
am  aware,  although  I  reside  in  a  city  that  sends  up  a  great 
many  to  the  legislature,  that  the  country  towns  have  fur- 
nished largely  the  brains  that  have  controlled  the  legislation 
of  the  state.  Whenever  an  important  matter  has  come  up 
that  was  in  the  interest  of  a  city, — and  I  don't  speak  of  one 
city,  but  all, — and  some  one  was  desired  to  advocate  its  inter- 
ests they  have  looked  to  the  men  from  country  towns. 

Now,  without  coming  down  definitely  to  any  number,  let's 
devise  some  way  by  which  the  House  can  be  reduced,  and  the 
Senate  increased  to  a  reasonable  number,  so  we  may  cease  to 
be  the  laughing  stock  of  the  people  of  other  states. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Tiiftonhorough. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Convention,  I  have  a  bill  here, — a  resolution,  which  was 
introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr,  Pattee. 
Now,  I  don't  know  the  gentleman,  and  so  far  as  the  argu- 
ment is  concerned  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should.  I  will 
read  it;  it  is  number  22.  (Reads  resolution).  It  leaves  the 
representation  at  304.  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  this  bill, 
to  my  mind,  is  very  satisfactory.  It  has  been  said  here,  and 
well  said,  that  the  towns  of  New  Hampshire  that  have  had 
representation  here,  have  produced  the  brains  for  this  House. 
Now,  I  don't  suppose  anybody  will  dispute  that.  But  in  order 
to  keep  those  towns  prosperous;  in  order  for  them  to  retain 
their  present  number  of  inhabitants;  in  order  for  them  to  be 
enabled  to  maintain  themselves,  and  create  an  enthusiasm  that 
will  keep  the  inhabitants  there,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  must  allow  them  certain  privileges  that 
will  be  advantageous  to  them  in  one  way  or  another.  Now,  as 
there  are  130  towns  that  come  under  that  class,  it  is  certainly 


104      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

quite  a  strength,  and  I  believe,  were  it  not  for  the  towns,  the 
towns  throughout  the  state,  or  cities  really,  would  -not  be  so 
well  ofE  as  they  are  now  under  the  present  basis,  if  some  other 
plan  should  be  adopted  reducing  their  representation.  I  live  in 
a  town  where  there  are  only  612  inhabitants.  I  do  not  wish  to 
live  in  a  town  where  there  are  less,  for  certainly  I  should  feel 
badly  to  see  my  town  get  so  low  as  not  to  have  representa- 
tion in  this  legislature. 

I  don't  know  but  the  time  is  coming,  unless  the  people  take 
hold,  when  we  shall  have  less  than  600  inhabitants.  Now  for  the 
advantage  of  the  state,  for  the  advantage  of  the  towns  and  for 
the  advantage  of  all  concerned,  it  seems  to  me  that  really  we 
ought  to  keep  the  number  as  low  as  600  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative. It  is  my  opinion  that  if  it  is  made  800  when  it 
comes  before  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  they  will  reject  it. 
Unless  we  are  granted  these  privileges,  it  seems  to  me  certainly 
that  it  will  be  rejected,  and  there  will  not  be  any  reduction 
whatever. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Netcmarket. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee,  I  am  opposed  to  the  reduction  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  first,  last  and  all  the  time.  And  I  am  sure, 
Sir,  if  that  grand  war  horse  who  represented  the  shire  town 
of  Exeter  was  a  member  of  this  Convention  you  never.  Sir,  would 
pass  an  amendment  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire,  calling  for  a  reduction  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. I  have  waited  patiently,  Sir,  to  hear  some  gentle- 
man, who  would  speak  in  relation  to  the  cost  of  this  House, 
advocating  its  reduction  because  it  would  be  cheaper.  We 
have  built  an  addition  on  to  the  State  House  to  accommodate 
the  representatives  who  are  elected  from  the  different  towns 
and  cities.  If  you  increase  the  Senate  some, — ^notwithstand- 
ing my  distinguished  friend,  the  patriarch  at  my  left, — to 
thirty-two,  or  forty,  or  fifty, — you  will  have  to  build  an  addi- 
tion upon  that  room  to  accommodate  the  senators,  and  if  there 
is  any  member  of  this  Committee  who  does  not  believe  that, 
let  him  go  in  and  see  how  congested  the  Honorable  Senate 
Chamber  would  be  with  any  more  than  twenty-four  senators. 
I  believe.  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  that  my  father  was 
as  wise  as  I  am;  that  my  grandfather  was  as  wise  as  my 
father  and  as  wise  as  I  am,  and  I  am  willing  to  acknowledge 
they  were  a  devilish  sight  more  honest.  I  believe  that  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  knew  what 
they  were  doing,  and  the  less  we  monkey  and  amend  the  Con- 
stitution of  New  Hampshire,  the  better  it  is  for  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  the  state,  and  for  us. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  105 

The  town  of  Newmarket,  which  I  have  the  honor  of  repre- 
senting, has  had  in  years  past  two  representatives.  Under  the 
census  that  has  been  promulgated  we  shall  have  three  in  the 
next  legislature  of  this  state,  unless  you  amend  the  Consti- 
tution, depriving  us  of  one  or  more  of  those  three.  Do  you 
suppose,  Sir,  I  want  to  go  back  to  my  town  and  say,  "You  are 
going  to  have  but  one  or  two  representatives  in  the  next 
House?"  No,  Sir,  never,  and  I  will  resort  to  every  parliamen- 
tary tactic  I  know  of,  and  I  will  put  every  member  on  record, 
before  you  shall  reduce  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  has 
been  well  said  that  much  of  the  brains  of  past  Houses  has  come 
from  the  country  towns.  I  was  born,  sir,  within  twenty  miles 
of  where  I  now  stand,  and  I  will  never  submit  to  the  reduction 
of  this  House.  They  say  it  costs  too  much.  Let  any  gentle- 
man who  has  had  anything  to  do  with  town  affairs  look  at 
the  state  tax  that  his  town  has  paid  the  last  year;  compare 
that  with  what  was  paid  five,  ten,  fifteen,  twenty  or  twenty- 
five  years  ago,  and  see  how  it  has  increased.  The  money  ex- 
pended for  instruction  to  the  young,  middle-aged  and  old  men 
who  have  been  members  of  this  House,  is  money  mighty  well 
expended,  in  my  judgment.  Every  young  man  who  has  ambi- 
tion has  a  desire  to  represent  his  native  or  adopted  town  in 
the  legislature  of  the  state.  It  is  a  good  school,  and  every  man 
that  comes  here  may  have  less  money  when  he  returns,  but, 
unless  his  brain  is  thick,  he  knows  more  than  when  he  came. 
I  am  opposed.  Sir,  to  a  reduction  of  this  House.  I  believe  we 
should  let  it  alone  and  have  the  number  of  representatives 
seated  in  the  next  House  that  will  be  entitled  to  sit  under  the 
promulgation  of  the  present  census. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket,  moved  that  the  Committee  rec- 
ommend to  the  Convention  that  all  resolutions  relating  to 
representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives  be  indefinitely 
postponed. 

Question  being  on  the  moftion  of  Mr.  Morse, — 

Mr.  Rowe  of  Kensington. — Several  years  ago  I  was  playing 
ball.  I  went  to  a  strange  town  where  I  didn't  know  any  one. 
Some  one  began  to  help  me  out  by  saying  a  few  words  in  my 
behalf.  On  inquiry  I  found  out  that  it  was  Dr.  Morse  of  New- 
market. I  was  very  grateful  for  the  help  he  gave  me,  and  if  it 
is  any  pleasure  to  him  to  have  me  second  his  motion,  or  to  say 
a  few  words  in  behalf  of  what  he  has  said,  I  will  say  it  now. 
I  heartily  coincide  in  everything  he  has  said,  and  I  hope  the 
recommendation  he  has  made  will  pass. 


106      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  of  Mr.  Morse  did  not  pre- 
vail. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  that  the  Committee 
do  now  rise,  recommend  that  Resolution  No.  19,  Relating 
to  the  Senate,  be  not  adopted,  report  progress  on  other  reso- 
lutions and  ask  leave  to  sit  again, 

The  motion  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Scammon  of  Exeter,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  19,  Relating  to  the 
Senate,  having  considered  the  same,  recommend  that  it  is 
inexpedient  for  the  Convention  to  adopt  the  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Scammon  of  Exeter,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  whom  were  referred  Resolutions  Nos.  1,  13,  14,  15,  18,  22, 
26,  35,  2,  and  25,  having  considered  the  same,  report  progress 
and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  leave  granted. 

Mr.  Guptill  of  Portsmouth  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion and  moved  its  adoption: — 

Frederick  Pickering,  a  member  elect  of  this  Convention 
from  the  town  of  Newington,  died  suddenly  in  that  town, 
Saturday,  June  1. 

Mr.  Pickering  was  born  in  the  town  of  Newington,  May 
29,  1849;  educated  there  and  at  Hampton  Academy;  taught 
school  for  several  years,  and  then  took  up  the  occupation  of 
farming.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Congregational  church 
and  a  Patron  of  Husbandry.  He  held  all  the  offices  within 
the  gift  of  the  people  of  his  native  town,  and  all  the  duties 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  107 

that  he  assumed  were  most  faithfully  performed.  Thor- 
oughly honest  and  conscientious  in  all  his  dealings^  he  al- 
ways maintained,  also,  that  unassuming  attitude  which 
marks  the  true  gentleman.  A  model  in  all  the  tender  rela- 
tions of  domestic  life,  a  friend,  loyal  and  true,  he  died  as  he 
had  lived,  a  Christian. 

Resolved,  therefore,  That  in  the  death  of  Frederick  Picker- 
ing the  state  has  lost  a  valuable  citizen,  and  the  community 
an  interested  friend;  that,  as  a  mark  of  respect  to  the  memory 
of  the  deceased,  this  memorial  be  placed  upon  the  records 
of  this  Convention,  and  that  a  copy  hereof  be  sent  to  his  fam- 

Resolved,  That,  as  an  additional  mark  of  respect  to  the 
memary  of  the  deceased,  this  Convention  be  now  adjourned. 

By  a  unanimous  vote  the  resolution  was  adopted  and  the 
Convention  adjourned  at  12.30'  o^clock. 

Aptedeinoon. 

The  Convention  met  at  2  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Upham  of  Claremont  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

RBSOLTPrroN  N"o.  41. 

Kelating  to  the  Registers  of  Probate. 

Resolved,  That  Article  70  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "registers  of  pro- 
bate'' and  that  the  following  article  be  added  to  the 
Constitution: 

The  registers  of  probate  shall  be  appointed  by  the  judges 
of  probate  of  their  respective  counties,  and  shall  hold  office 
for  a  term  of  five  years.  The  first  appointments  under  this 
article  shall  be  made  to  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  Janu- 
ary, 1915. 


108      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  resalution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on.  Judicial 
Department. 

Mr.  Upham  of  Claremont  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Rbsoltption  No.  42. 

Relating  to  the  Registers  of  Deeds. 

Resolved,  That  Article  70  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  '^registers  of 
deeds/'  and  that  the  following  article  be  added  to  the  Consti- 
tution: 

The  registers  of  deeds  shall  be  appointed  by  the  judges 
of  the  Superior  Courts  and  shall  hold  office  for  a  term  of  five 
years.  They  shall  be  subject  to  removal  by  the  judges  of 
the  Superior  Court  for  cause,  after  due  notice  and  hearing. 
The  first  appointments  under  this  article  shall  be  made  to 
take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1915. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judi- 
cial Department. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

REtsoLtmoiN  No.  43. 

Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  24  and  25  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be,  and  hereby  are, 
amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Art.  24.  The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-six  mem- 
bers, who  shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years,  from  the  first 
Wednesday  of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  Senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide 
the  state  into  thirty-six  districts  of  contiguous  territory,  as 
nearly  equal  as  may  be,  without  dividing  towns  and  unin- 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  109 

corporated  places^  on  the  basis  of  population  according  to 
tlie  last  census  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legis- 
lative Department. 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

E.ESOIKJTION  No.  44. 

Relating  to  Councillor  Districts. 

Resolved,  That  Article  64  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "ratable  polls 
and  proportion  of  public  taxes/'  and  inserting  in  place 
thereof  the  word  "population/'  so  that  Article  64  as  amended 
shall  read: 

Art.  64.  The  legislature  may^  if  the  public  good  shall 
hereafter  require  it,  divide  the  state  into  five  districts,  as 
nearly  equal  as  may  be^  governing  themselves  by  the  num- 
ber of  population,  each  district  to  elect  a  councillor;  and,  in 
case  of  such  division,  the  manner  of  the  choice  shall  be  con- 
formable to  the  present  mode  of  election  in  counties. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  "Wihole. 

Mr.  Updyke  of  Hanover  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Rbsoltjtion  '^0.  45. 

Relating  to  Residence  Qualification  of  Voters. 

Resolved,  That  Article  29,  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  stricken  out  and  that  the  following  be  inserted  in 
lieu  thereof: 

Every  person  qualified  as  the  Constitution  provides,  and 
who  shall  have  resided  within  this  state  for  one  year  and 
within  any  town,  city  or  unincorporated  place   six  months 


110     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

preceding  the  day  of  any  election  shall  be  considered  an  in- 
habitant for  the  purpose  of  voting  or  being  elected  to  any 
office  or  place  within  this  state,  in  the  town,  city  or  unin- 
corporated place  where  he  dwells  and  has  his  home,  provided, 
however,  that  any  legal  voter  moving  from  one  ward  to  an- 
other ward  in  the  same  city  of  said  state  within  six  months 
next  prior  to  any  election  shall  not  be  deprived  of  his  right 
of  voting  at  such  election  in  the  ward  from  which  he  re- 
moved, if,  prior  to  such  removal,  he  shall  file  a  declaration 
in  writing  with  the  city  clerk  of  said  city,  that  he  intends  to 
vote  at  such  election  in  the  ward  from  which  he  removed. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Eights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Updyke  of  Hanover  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

ResoltjtiOiN  No.  46. 

Eelating  to  the  Qualification  of  Voters. 

Resolved,  That  Article  11  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be  amended 
by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  and  provided, 
further,  that  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be 
eligible  to  office  under  the  Constitution  of  this  state  who 
shall  have  been  convicted  of  treason,  felony,  bribery,  larceny 
or  any  wilful  violation  of  the  election  laws  of  this  state  or  of 
the  United  States;  but  the  General  Court  may,  by  vote  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each  house  restore  the  privi- 
leges of  an  elector  to  persons  who  may  have  forfeited  them 
by  conviction  of  such  offences:  so  that  Article  11  shall  read: 

Akt.  11.  All  elections  ought  to  be  free;  and  every  in- 
habitant of  the  state,  having  the  proper  qualifications,  has 
equal  right  to  elect  and  be  elected  into  office;  but  no  person 
shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the 
Constitution  of  this  state,  who  shall  not  be  able  to  read  the 
Constitution  in  the  English  language,  and  to 'write,  provided, 
however,  that  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  any  person 
prevented  by  a  physical  disability  from  complying  with  its 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.'  Ill 

requisitions,  nor  to  any  person  who  now  has  the  right  to  vote, 
nor  to  any  person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or  upwards 
on  the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1904;  and  provided  further, 
that  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to 
office  under  the  Constitution  of  this  state  who  shall  have 
been  convicted  of  treason,  felony,  bribery,  larceny  or  any 
wilful  violation  of  the  election  laws  of  this  state  or  of  the 
United  States;  but  the  General  Court  may,  by  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  of  each  house  restore  the  privileges 
of  an  elector  to  persons  who  may  have  forfeited  them  by 
conviction  of  such  offences. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Comings  of  Cornish  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

RBSOLnanoN  No.  47. 

Relating  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  that  the  Constitution  of 
New  Hampshire  be  amended  as  follows: 

Amend  Art.  2  of  Part  Second  by  adding  thereto  the  fol- 
lowing: 

But  the  people  reserve  to  themselves  the  power  to  pro- 
pose legislative  measures,  resolutions  and  laws,  and  to  enact 
or  reject  the  same  at  the  polls,  independently  of  the  General 
Court;  and  also  reserve  power,  at  their  own  option,  to  ap- 
prove or  reject  at  the  polls  any  act,  item,  section  or  part  of 
any  resolution,  act  or  measure  passed  by  the  General  Court. 

The  first  power  reserved  by  the  people  is  the  Initiative,* 
and  a  petition  signed  by  qualified  voters  of  the  state  equal 
in  number  to  eight  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  cast  for  gov- 
ernor at  the  last  preceding  state  election  shall  be  required  to 
propose  any  measure  by  initiative  petition,  and  every  such 
petition  shall  include  the  full  text  of  the  measure  so  pro- 
posed.    Initiative  petitions  ^hall  be  filed  with  the  Secretary 


112     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  State  not  less  than  four  months  before  the  election  at 
which  they  are  to  he  voted  upon.  If  conflicting  measures 
submitted  to  the  people  shall  be  approved  by  a  majority  of 
the  votes  severally  cast  for  and  against  the  same,  the  one  re- 
ceiving the  highest  number  of  affirmative  votes  shall  thereby 
become  law  as  to  all  conflicting  provisions. 

The  second  reserved  power  is  the  Eeferendum^  and  it  may 
be  ordered  by  the  General  Court,  as  other  bills  are  enacted, 
or,  except  as  to  emergency  measures,  by  petition  of  qualified 
voters  of  the  state  in  number  equal  to  five  per  cent  of  the 
total  vote  cast  for  governor  at  the  last  preceding  state  elec- 
tion, filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State.  ISlo  law  shall  go  into 
effect,  except  emergency  measures,  until  sixty  days  after  the 
final  adjournment  of  the  General  Court  passing  the  same; 
and  if,  within  said  sixty  days,  a  referendum  is  demanded  said 
law  shall  be  suspended  until  the  referendum  vote  shall  de- 
termine whether  or  not  the  law  is  sustained  or  defeated.  If 
it  shall  be  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  public 
health,  safety  or  peace,  that  a  measure  shall  become  effective 
without  delay,  such  necessity  shall  be  stated  in  one  section, 
and  if  by  vote  of  yeas  and  nays  two-thirds  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  each  house  shall,  on  a  separate  roll-call,  vote  in 
favor  of  the  measure  going  into  immediate  effect  for  such 
reason,  such  measure  shall  become  operative  upon  being  ap- 
proved by  the  governor;  provided,  that  an  emergency  shall 
not  be  declared  on  any  measure  creating  or  abolishing  any 
office,  or  to  change  the  salary,  term  or  duties  of  any  officer, 
or  for  the  grant  of  any  franchise.  If  a  referendum  petition 
be  filed  against  an  emergency  measure,  such  measure  shall 
be  law  until  it  is  voted  upon  by  the  people,  and  if  it  is  then 
t  rejected  by  a  majority  of  those  voting  upon  the  question, 
such  measure  shall  be  thereby  repealed.  The  filing  of  a 
referendum  petition  against  one  or  more  items,  sections  or 
parts  of  any  act,  legislative  measure  or  resolve,  shall  suspend 
the  operation  of  the  same,  but  shall  not  delay  the  remainder 
of  the  measure  from  becoming  operative.  The  veto  power  of 
the  governor  shall  not  extend  to  measures  initiated  by  or 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  118 

referred  to  the  people.  All  elections  on  general^  local  or 
special  measures  referred  to  the  people  of  the  state  or  of 
any  locality,  shall  be  had  at  regular  biennial  elections,  un- 
less expressly  otherwise  ordered  by  the  General  Court.  Any 
measure  initiated  by  or  referred  to  the  people  shall  become 
law  if  it  is  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon, 
and  not  otherwise,  and  every  such  measure  shall  become  law 
thirty  days  after  the  election  at  which  it  is  approved.  The 
Secretary  of  State  shall  submit  all  measures  initiated  by  or 
referred  to  the  people  for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  polls 
in  compliance  herewith.  The  petition  shall  consist  of  sheets 
having  such  general  form  printed  or  written  at  the  top 
thereof  as  shall  be  designated  or  prescribed  by  the  Secretary 
of  State;  such  petitions  shall  be  signed  by  qualified  voters 
in  their  own  proper  persons  only,  to  which  shall  be  attac'hed 
the  name  of  the  place  of  residence  of  each  and  the  date  of 
signing  the  petition.  The  Secretary  of  State  shall  print  and 
distribute  to  each  voter  a  sample  ballot,  together  with  the 
text  of  every  measure  to  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  General  Court  shall  provide  for  public  dissem- 
ination of  information  and  arguments  thereon.  This  article 
of  the  Constitution  shall  be  in  all  respects  self-executing, 
but  laws  may  be  enacted  to  aid  its  operation. 

Amend  Art.  4  of  Part  Second  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof 
the  follow^ing:  Except  as  provided  in  Art.  2. 

Amend  Art.  5  of  Part  Second  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof 
the  following:  Except  as  provided  in  Art.  2. 

Amend  x\rt.  91  of  Part  Second  by  striking  out  the 
words, — "Senate  and  House  of  Eepresentatives  in  General 
Court  convened,"  and  insert  in  place  thereof  the  words, — 
"people  of  the  State  of  ^ew  Hampshire,"  so  that  the  same 
shall  read: 

Art.  91.  The  enacting  style,  in  making  and  passing  acts, 
statutes  and  laws  shall  be.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the 
State  of  New  Hampshire. 


114     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legis- 
lative Department. 

Mr.  Huid  of  Claremont  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  Xo.  48. 

Relating  to  Roll-Call  in  the  Legislature. 

Resolved,  That  Article  23  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  words  "any  one  mem- 
ber" the  words  "seconded  by  ten  members/'  so  that  said 
article  as  amended  shall  read: 

Art.  23.  The  journals  of  the  proceedings  and  all  public 
acts  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  shall  be  printed  and 
published  immediately  after  every  adjournment  or  proroga- 
tion, and,  upon  motion  made  by  any  one  member,  seconded 
by  ten  members,  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  any  question  shall 
be  entered  on  the  journal^  and  any  member  of  the  Senate  or 
House  of  Representatives  shall  have  a  rights  on  motion  made 
at  the  same  time  for  that  purpose,  to  have  his  protest  or 
dissent^  with  the  reasons,  against  any  vote^  resolve,  or  bill 
passed  entered  on  the  journal. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  WHiole  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  Resolution  No.  5,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild 
and  Forest  Lands  and  Money  at  Interest. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Young  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  offered  the  following  amendment: 

Amend  Resolution  No.  5,  as  follows:  By  substituting  the 
words  "growing  wood  and  timber,"  for  the  words,  "wild  and 
forest/'  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  lines  of  said  resolution;  and 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  115 

by  inserting  after  the  word  "interest,"  and  before  the  word 
"which"  in  line  5  of  said  resolution,  the  words,  "including 
money  in  savings  banks  within  this  state  and  money  de- 
posited by  residents  of  this  state  in  savings  banks  without 
the  state;"  and  by  adding,  after  the  word  "rated,"  in  the 
sixth  line  of  said  resolution,  the  words,  "and  in  the  assess- 
ment and  rating  of  either  reasonable  exemptions  may  be 
made,"  so  that  the  article  as  amended  shall  read  in  part,  as 
follows: 

Art.  5.     And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are  here- 
by given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court,  from  time 

to  time, to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and 

reasonable  assessments,  rates  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of,  and  residents  within,  the  said  state  and  upon  all 
estates  within  the  same,  except  growing  wood  and  timber 
lands  and  money  at  interest,  including  money  in  savings 
banks  within  this  state  and  money  deposited  by  residents  of 
this  state  in  savings  banks  without  the  state  which  may  be 
specially  assessed  and  rated  and  in  the  assessment  and  rating 
of  either  reasonable  exemptions  may  be  made. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  to  the 
resolution, — 

3£r.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — Mr.  Chairman:  It  is  nay  desire, 
should  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention,  to  have  this 
amendment  printed,  and,  at  the  convenience  of  the  Convention, 
take  it  up  for  consideration.  When  it  is  under  consideration, 
by  the  Convention,  it  is  my  purpose  to  attempt  an  explanation 
of  what  I  regard  as  necessary  changes,  or  amendments,  in  the 
resolution  to  which  this  is  a  proposed  amendment.  But,  at 
this  time,  I  desire  only  that  it  shall  be  presented  to  the  Con- 
vention, that  it  may  be  printed  and  taken  up  for  consideration 
in  connection  with  the  original  resolution,  and,  also,  in  con- 
nection with  the  resolution  proposed  this  morning  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Tilton,  that  resolution  which  provides  for  author- 
ity to  tax  incomes;  because  the  two  propositions  should  be 
considered  together  being  in  relation,  essentially,  to  the  same 
subject. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  accepted  the  amendment. 


116     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr,  Mitchell  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
now  rise^  report  the  foregoing  amendment,  that  it  had  been 
accepted,  recommend  that  it  be  printed,  and  then  again  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 
In  Contention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  5,  Relating  to 
Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest  Lands  and  Money  at  Interest, 
having  considered  the  same,  report  that  the  foregoing 
amendment  h'ad  been  accepted,  recommend  that  it  be  printed 
and  then  again  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  A^Tiole. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendations 
adopted. 

Mr.  Connor  of  Ward  10,  Manchester,  introduced  the  fol- 
lowing resolution: 

Resolution  No.  49. 

Relating  to  the  Poll  Tax  of  Female  Voters. 

Resolved,  That  Article  6,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution 
of  New  Hampshire  be  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  said 
article  the  following:  Provided,  that  no  poll  tax  shall  be  as- 
sessed upon  any  female  inhabitant  who  has  not  qualified  to 
vote  for  senator. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Connor  of  Ward  10,  Manchester,  the 
resolution  was  referred  to  the  Special  Committee  on  Woman's 
Suffrage. 

Presentation  of  Gavel  to  President  Jones. 

Mr.  Entivistle  of  Portsmouth.— ^ir.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  I  do  not  wish  to  use  up  too  much  of  your 
valuable  time.     On  Wednesdav,  June  3,  when  this  Convention  so 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  IIT 

magnificently  chose  Hon.  Edwin  F.  Jones,  of  Manchester,  for 
its  President,  there  was  not  a  member  of  this  Convention  that 
spoke  of  his  having  any  emblem  of  authority.  When  our  great 
national  parade  of  officers  and  men  of  our  great  naval  battle- 
ships are  ordered  to  different  ports,  they  are  laden  down  with 
emblems  of  authority,  during  times  of  peace,  the  same  as  they 
would  be  in  times  of  war.  I  deem  it  a  privilege  and  a  per- 
sonal pleasure  to  present  two  unquestionable  emblems  of 
authority  to  our  President, — the  gavel  being  made  from  some 
of  the  same  wood  that  the  furniture  for  the  battleship  New 
Hampshire  was.  And  when  our  President  retires  from  this 
honorable  Convention,  he  will  have  them  to  hang  in  his  office 
or  in  his  home,  and  gaze  upon  them,  and  realize  with  what  a 
simple  little  weapon  he  controlled  this  large  family.  At  this 
time  I  request  our  President  to  accept  this  gavel  and  American 
flag,  with  our  best  wishes  for  his  success  and  happiness. 

TJie  President. — The  Chair  would  return  his  thanks  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portsmouth  for  the  kind  words  and  for  the  gift 
of  the  gavel  and  of  the  flag.  The  gavel  may  be  called  the  em- 
blem of  authority  in  this  Convention  while  we  are  sitting  here; 
but  the  flag  is  the  emblem  that  we  all,  in  the  chair  and  on  the 
floor,  love   and  respect. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — I  have  noticed  in  resolving  our- 
selves into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  that  we  are  shifting  back 
and  forth,  the  Committee  rising  and  sitting  again,  and  it  is 
entirely  different  from  the  ordinary  parliamentary  procedure 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Now,  I  move,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  Committee  on  Rules  be  instructed  to  report  a  rule  whereby 
all  matters  referred  to  •  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  shall  be 
placed  on  what  they  call  a  general  order;  then  they  can  be 
taken  up,  and  if  we  see  fit  to  vote  to  pass  one,  we  can  take 
up  the  next,  so  we  can  devote  our  time  without  this  constantly 
shifting  from  the  Convention  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
Thus,  the  clerk  will  make  out  that  list  every  day  of  what  is  on  • 
the  general  order,  (and  then  when  the  Convention  resolves  itself 
into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  it  will  be  on  that  general 
order,  and  they  can  take  up  and  pass  anything  they  want,  or 
they  can  go  through  and  discuss  the  whole  list  which  may  be 
upon  that  order.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  more  systematic 
and  save  a  good  deal  of  time  to  have  that  rule  and  have  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  placed  upon  that  order,  so  we  can 
take  up  any  of  them  or  all  of  them  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  at  one  sitting. 

The  President. — The  Chair  would  request  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester  to  put  his  motion  in  writing. 


118     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  apportionment 
of  representation  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  and  Sen- 
ate, the  same  being, 

Resolution  No.  1^  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  13,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  14,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  15,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

•      Resolution  No.  18,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  22,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  26,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  Representa- 
tives in  Cities  and  Towns  of  Less  than  800  Inhabitants. 

Resolution  No.  35,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  2,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolution  No.  25,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  WMtcher  of  Haverhill. — Mr.  Chairman,  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee,  I  take  it  for  g-ranted  that  a  majority  of  the 
delegates  of  the  Convention  are  impressed  with  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  general  expectation  that  something"  will  be  done  by 
this  Constitutional  Convention,  proposing  to  the  people  of  the 
state  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  representatives.    In  fact,  I 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  119 

have  seen  in  some  of  the  public  prints  that  that  is  what  we 
are  here  for  more  than  anything  else,  and  if  we  do  not  do 
something  we   shall  all  be  repudiated   when  we   get  home. 

I  for  one,  do  not  sympathize  with  the  sentiment  that  the 
present  size  of  our  House  is  a  thing  at  all  dangerous  to  the 
institutions  of  the  state,  and  I  think  we  shall  survive,  even  if 
the  next  House,  under  a  new  apportionment,  consists  of  410 
members  and,  if  we  had  room,  of  500  members.  I  am  not  at 
all  troubled  with  the  suggestion  that  is  made  that  New  Hamp- 
shire, with  its  large  House,  is  the  laughing  stock  of  the  people 
of  the  other  states.  I  think  we  are  capable  of  taking  care  of 
ourselves,  and  managing  our  own  institutions  and  our  own 
government,  and,  if  others  see  fit  to  laugh,  let  them  laugh. 

I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  our  large  House  will  compare 
favorably  in  point  of  integrity,  in  point  of  intelligence,  in  point 
of  results,  with  any  of  the  small  Houses  of  the  larger  states, 
and  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  believe  that  the  character  of 
our  legislation  would  be  improved,  or  the  character  of  the 
personnel  of  the  membership  of  the  House  would  be  improved 
by  a  small  House.  There  is  a  demand,  perhaps,  and  a  general 
sentiment  that  the  House  should  be  somewhat  smaller  than  it 
is,  and,  of  the  various  propositions  and  resolutions  that  have 
been  introduced,  the  one.  No.  13,  introduced  by  Mr.  Pillsbury  of 
Manchester,  to  my  mind  seems  the  best.  I  believe  we  should 
get  a  House  with  a  fixed  number.  That  proposed  amendment 
places  the  membership  of  the  House  at  300.  We  may,  perhaps, 
be  agreed  that  it  is  expedient  to  reduce  the  size  of  the  House, 
and  the  question  comes  as  to  the  manner  and  the  method. 

We  have  heard  a  great  deal  about  preserving  the  representa- 
tion of  the  small  towns.  Now  as  I  understand  it,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, the  State  of  New  Hampshire  is  not  a  confederation  of 
towns,  never  was  and  never  was  intended  to  be.  The  Consti- 
tution of  1784  that  was  adopted,  was  not  adopted  by  a  confed- 
eration of  towns.  Part  Second  of  the  preamble  reads:  "The 
people  inhabiting  the  territory  formerly  called  the  Province 
of  New  Hampshire,  do  hereby  solemnly  and  mutually  agree 
with  each  other  to  form  themselves  into  a  free  sovereign  in- 
dependent body  politic,  or  state,  by  the  name  of  the  State  of 
New  Hampshire."  It  was  the  people  within  the  confines  of  the 
State  of  New  Hampshire  that  adopted  our  Constitution  and 
formed  a  government, — a  government  of  the  people,  not  of  the 
towns.  The  Constitution  which  is  in  force  today  is  the  same: 
"The  people  inhabiting  the  territory  formerly  called  the 
Province  of  New  Hampshire  do  hereby  solemnly  and  mutually 
agree    with    each    other    to    form   themselves    into    a   free,    sov- 


120     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ereign  body  politic,  or  state,  by  the  name  of  the  State,  of  New 
Hampshire."  It  was  the  people,  within  the  boundaries  of  New 
Hampshire,  that  formed  and  adopted,  and  have  lived  under,  for 
a  century  and  a  quarter  or  more,  this  Constitution.  I  wish  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  our  state  is  not  a  confederation  of 
towns. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  town  being  the  unit  of  gov- 
ernment. We  have  our  little  republics  that  govern  their  own 
local  affairs,  and  they  will  still  be  units  of  government  under 
any  system  of  representation  that  we  may  adopt  for  the  legis- 
lature. We  are  not  destroying  the  towns,  we  are  not  destroy- 
ing the  unity  of  the  towns.  The  legislature  represents  the 
people  of  the  state,  not  the  towns.  The  men  that  are  sent 
here,  they  are  sent  by  the  towns  for  convenience'  sake,  but  they 
are  not  sent  here  merely  to  look  out  for  their  little  individual 
towns.  They  are  sent  here  to  legislate  for  the  interests  of  the 
people  of  the  state,  the  whole  state.  They  are  not  sent  here 
to  represent  counties  or  to  represent  towns.  That  theory  may 
obtain  in  some  of  our  sister  states.  It  may  obtain  in  Vermont 
where  the  representatives  in  the  lower  House  are  termed  town 
representatives.  New  Hampshire  is  not  a  confederation  of 
towns, — it  is  the  people. 

Now  if  the  people  are  to  be  represented  here,  there  is  but 
one  fair, — we  all  agree  to  that  I  think, — there  is  but  one  fair, 
ideal  system  of  representation,  and  that  is  by  districts,  a  divi- 
sion of  the  state  into  districts.  I  heard  it  said  that  the  peo- 
ple would  not  stand  for  that.  How  do  we  know?  Has  the 
proposition  ever  been  submitted  to  the  people  to  divide  the 
state  into  representative  districts?  Various  propositions  have 
been  submitted  to  continue  our  present  system  of  town  repre- 
sentation on  a  certain  basis,  and  the  attempt  made  ten  years 
ago  and  submitted  to  the  people  was  rejected  by  the  people. 
The  district  system  has  never  been  presented  to  the  people  as 
yet,  and  this  claim  that  is  sometimes  made  that  the  interests 
of  the  small  towns  will  suffer  if  representation  is  based  upon 
a  district  system,  why,  it  is  a  bugaboo.  The  system  of  district 
representation  prevails  in  other  states  and  prevails  without 
damage  to  the  small  towns  and  the  small  communities.  Why, 
take  our  sister  state  of  Massachusetts.  I  had  the  misfortune, — 
or  good  fortune,  whichever  it  may  be  called, — to  reside  for 
some  25  years  in  that  state,  and  in  three  different  classes  of 
communities.  My  first  residence  in  that  state  was  in  a  district 
that  was  formed  by  three  towns,  a  district  that,  under  a  system 
of  reorganization  after  a  census,  now  consists  of  six  towns. 
None  of  those  towns   ever  have   been  known  to  have  suffered. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  121 

and  the  smaller  towns  in  that  district  had  equal  rights  with 
other  towns.  I  was  a  resident  for  nearly  20  years  in  a  district 
in  that  state  consisting-,  when  I  first  became  a  resident  there, 
of  two  towns  entitled  to  two  representatives.  One  town  was 
nearly  twice  as  large  as  the  other.  By  a  tacit  understanding, 
that  district  was  represented  for  two  years  in  the  legislature 
by  members  from  that  town,  and  for  the  next  two  years  by 
one  member  from  that  town  and  one  member  from  the  smaller 
town.  That  district  never  had  any  difficulty  in  the  matter  of 
representation.  It  has  changed  since.  One  of  those  towns  has 
become  a  city,  and  is  now  a  representative  district  by  itself 
and  sends  three  representatives.  The  other  town  has  become 
a  district  by   itself  and  sends  two  representatives. 

We  are  living  today  when  it  is  admitted  that  the  people  rule. 
The  people  are  represented,  not  the  towns.  I  have  no  fear 
then,  Sir,  that  the  small  towns  or  the  interests  of  the  small 
towns  will  be  in  the  least  threatened,  will  be  in  the  least  dam- 
aged, by  district  representation.  It  is  the  fair  system  of 
representation.  Our  present  system  is  unfair,  and  many  of 
the  propositions  we  have  before  us  make  it  still  more  unfair. 
The  only  fair  system  of  representation  is  to  represent  the  peo- 
ple, and  all  the  people.  There  has  been  no  legislation  for  the 
past  ten  years  when  all  the  people  have  been  represented  here. 
Some  towns  have  been  unrepresented,  and  I  presume,  if  we 
continue  the  present  system,  they  will  continue  to  be  unrepre- 
sented. I  am  in  favor  of  the  district  system,  and  in  the  main, 
of  Resolution  No.  13  which  we  have  here  before  us.  I  do  not 
believe,  Sir,  we  need  to  be  afraid  of  injuring  the  rights  of  the 
small  towns  by  adopting  district  representation.  We  began  in 
the  colony  of  New  Hampshire  with  four  towns,  and  they  added 
one  town  after  another  to  it,  but  since  our  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  it  has  been  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and,  as  I  said  before,  the  men  who  come  here  come,  not 
to  represent  towns,  but  to  represent  the  people,  and  to  legis- 
late for  the  people  of  the  entire  state  as  such. 

Mr.  Win<^h  of  Langdon. — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  you 
have  all  been  highly  elated  and  highly  entertained,  and  I  pro- 
pose to  add  a  little  to  it,  although  it  will  be  in  another  direc- 
tion from  what  you  have  already  listened  to.  As  you  know, 
I  have  put  in  one  little  resolution  here.  No.  15,  which  calls  for 
a  representative  from  every  town  and  every  ward  ia  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire.  I  represent,  as  you  all  know,  one  of  the 
small  towns,  and  we  all  understand  that  when  we  were  elected 
to  come  here, — or  I  might  say  when  the  agitation  for  calling 
the  Constitutional  Convention  was  in  progress, — ^it  was  always 


122  Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

spoken  of  that  the  House  should  be  reduced  and  the  Senate 
should  be  increased.  It  was  with  that  idea  that  this  Conven- 
tion was  called  by  the  people  of  Xew  Hampshire.  Every  town 
had  a  voice  in  it.  Every  town  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
cast  its  ballots  for  or  against  this  Convention,  and  for  that 
very  purpose,— nothing  else  practically. 

The  question  has  come  down  to  this:  How  much  shall  the 
House  be  reduced?  Of  course  it  is  not  for  me  to  say, — it  is  for 
this  Convention  to  say.  You,  as  delegates,  must  formulate 
some  scheme  that  will,  if  possible,  be  acceptable  to  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  that  they  will  ratify  after  our  adjourn- 
ment. Just  what  that  scheme  shall  be,  or  what  it  can  be  and 
be  ratified  is  a  very,  very  difficult  problem.  We  all  know  that 
from  the  beginning  towns  have  rights.  Every  individual  has 
rights  in  a  township.  The  people  have  rights.  There  is  no 
question  about  it.  The  question  is,  how  shall  the  people  be 
served  so  that  these  rights  may  be  continued, — so  that  they 
can  have  the  rights  which  belong  to  them,  which  our  fore- 
fathers in  the  Constitution  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  in- 
tended that  they  should  have? 

It  has  been  said  to  you  that  Vermont  has  a  town  system  of 
representation.  It  certainly  has,  each  town  having  one  repre- 
sentative and  each  city  one, — no  ward  has  a  representative.  I 
did  not  feel,  when  I  drew  this  resolution,  that  it  would  be  right 
to  draw  it  and  confine  it  as  the  Vermont  law  does,  for  I  believe 
that  every  ward  in  every  city  has  rights.  They  have  a  right  to 
say  what  laws  shall  govern  them,  how  those  laws  shall  be 
made,  and  they  should  have  a  right  to  a  voice  in  the  making  of 
those  laws.  And  as  the  proposition  was  made  that  the  House 
should  be  reduced  to  the  number  of  300  at  least,  if  not  more, 
I  cast  myself  about  to  see  how  that  could  be  best  accom- 
plished, and  I  found  by  taking  the  proposition  that  every 
town  and  ward  have  a  voice  in  what  laws  should  govern  them, 
that  we  would  get  a  representation  of  290  members  in  the 
House.  As  you  see,  I  made  provision  that  if  any  of  the  larger 
towns  should  become  cities  and  be  divided  into  wards,  those 
wards  should  have  a  representative.  Now  the  question  comes, 
is  that  right?  Is  that  a  basis  which  is  worthy  of  accepta- 
tion? Is  it  a  basis  that  the  people  will  ratify?  You  may  go 
into  any  other  of  the  resolutions  which  have  been  advanced 
here,  take  any  other  resolution,  and  one  or  two  come  nearly 
on  the  same  basis,  but  most  of  them  come  in  a  different  way. 
And,  as  I  said,  it  is  for  you  to  decide  which  one  of  these  plans 
can  be  best  adapted  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  and  its 
inhabitants.     Some  say  that  it  is  not  fair  that  a  ward  and  town 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  123 

should  have  but  one  representative.  Gentlemen,  what  does 
our  United  States  g-overnment  do?  How  Is  the  Senate  com- 
posed? How  many  members  has  our  state,  how  many  mem- 
bers has  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylvania, — 
just  the  same  as  we,  a  small  state.  Delaware  has  two.  New 
Hampshire  has  two,  no  state  in  the  Union  has  over  two,  but 
the  representation  is  on  a  different  basis, — more  by  popula- 
tion, and  this  state  is  fortunate  enough  to  have  two  districts. 
Other  states  are   larg-er. 

Now  I  have  turned  this  right  around.  If  you  will  notice, 
I  give  each  town  one,  each  ward  one,  on  the  same  basis  as  the 
United  States  government  gives  each  state  in  the  Union  two 
senators.  Let  each  town  have  its  one  representative.  Then  if 
we  increase  the  Senate  to  whatever  number  is  decided  upon 
here,  if  decided  upon  to  increase,  let  those  come  from  the  dis- 
trict system.  In  the  past  legislature,  25  of  our  towns  in  the 
state  were  disfranchised, — that  is,  had  no  voice  whatever.  The 
district  system,  to  a  certain  extent,  was  tried  a  few  years  ago, 
some  of  the  smaller  towns  being  classed  together,  and  had  to 
travel  from  one  town  to  another  to  do  their  voting,  and  they 
got  sick  of  it, — they  didn't  like  it.  If  we  are  districted,  it  will 
be  just  exactly  the  same  as  we  are  at  the  present  time  with 
our  senatorial  business.  In  our  part  of  the  state,  which  is  the 
western,  it  is  about  an  impossibility  for  a  small  town  to  have 
a  senator.  I  suppose  they  do  not  have  brains  enough,  that  is 
the  trouble,  but  the  small  towns,  I  believe,  have  got  some  just 
as  good  men  in  them  as  the  larger  towns,  but  not  one  can  get 
a  representative  in  the  Senate  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
It  has  been  tried, — good  and  true  men  have  tried  to  get  the 
position,  but  no,  they  couldn't  have  it. 

The  same  system  would  come  if  the  state  was  districted  for 
representation.  The  larger  towns  would  have  the  representa- 
tion if  they  had  to  take  one  from  the  opposite  party  to  do  it. 
That  is  the  way  it  would  go  in  many  cases.  There  are  ex- 
ceptions to  all  rules,  and  for  that  reason  I  believe  that  the  peo- 
ple of  every  town,  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  would  be  as 
well  represented  in  the  House  if  you  reduce  the  House  to  a 
membership  of  300  or  thereabouts  by  having  every  town  and 
ward  have  one.  I  further  believe  that  the  membership  of  the 
House  would  be  of  a  higher  standing.  I  was  told  by  an  officei* 
of  this  county  since  coming  here,  that  he  knew  it  to  be  a 
fact  that  in  the  ward  in  which  he  lives  they  are  short  of 
timber  for  representatives  who  are  qualified  to  sit  as  rep- 
resentatives, and  that  sometimes  a  man  of  the  opposite  party 
gets  the  seat  in  preference  to  a  man  of  his  own,  because  he  is 


124    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

a  better  qualified  man.  That  is  all  right,  I  believe  in"  qualifi- 
cations, but  it  would  work  just  the  same  if  we  were  districted. 
If  there  was  a  man  nominated  for  representative  in  a  large 
town  who  was  in  the  opposite  party  from  what  the  district 
was,  that  larger  town  would  get  the  representation  and  the 
smaller  towns  would  go  without.  That  is  about  the  size  of 
it,  if  you  come  into  a  district.  That  is  the  way  it  worked 
when  we  were  classed,  and  I  think  the  same  thing  would  occur 
today  that  did  at  that  ime.  Now  it  seems  to  me,  if  you  are 
getting  ready  to  reduce  the  House  to  any  such  figure  as  300, 
that  this  is  one  of  the  w^ays  by  which  it  can  be  done.  There 
are  other  ways  that  are  good,  and  jou  never  can  get  the  good 
unless  you  have  the  whole  to  make  an  assortment  from  and 
pick  out  the  best,  and  I  think  that  is  the  only  way  you  can 
get  at  it.  If  there  was  not  a  resolution  put  in  here  to  have 
one,  as  I  have  done,  it  would  not  come  before  you  at  all.  It 
may  be  the  best  way, — but  you  may  think  differently, — but 
there  is  one  thing  about  it  you  all  want,  the  larger  places 
want,  and  I  am  sure  we  farmers  feel  that  we  have  a  pretty 
heavy  burden  of  taxation  to  pay,  and  we  feel  that  we  should 
have  representation  in  proportion  to  our  taxation,  and  that 
we  have  a  right,  a  legal  right,  one  which  has  been  handed  down 
from  time  to  time,  to  have  our  say  in  what  laws  shall  govern 
us,  and  in  all  our  affairs  as  municipalities.  We  are,  as  has 
been  said,  corporate  places  by  ourselves.  We  have  our  little 
courts,  as  you  may  call  it,  our  town  meetings,  and  all  that,  but 
we  have  our  rights,  and  it  is  for  our  rights  that  I  plead  and' 
for  those  I  ask,  and  for  no  more. 

Mr.  Carter  of  Lebanon. — I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal  of 
attention  to  the  gentleman  who  has  just  spoken,  saying  that 
we  should  report  his  amendment  favorably  to  the  people,  and 
that  it  should  become  a  law.  I  should  like  to  ask  him,  what 
justice  there  would  be  in  this  case:  The  town  which  I  repre- 
sent has  5700  inhabitants,  according  to  the  last  census.  The 
city  of  Franklin  has  6100.  The  city  of  Franklin  would  have 
three  representatives  and-  the  town  of  Lebanon  would  have 
one.  And  here  is  another  case,  the  city  of  Franklin  has  6100, 
as  I  have  already  said,  and  under  this  amendment  would  have 
three  representatives,  while  the  town  of  Claremont,  which  has 
7500  inhabitants,  would  have  one  representative. 

Mr.  Winch  of  Langdon. — In  reply  to  the  gentleman,  I  will  say: 
Lebanon  will  have  the  same  rights  that  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire  has  in  our  election  of  senators  to  Congress.  That 
is  not  based  on  population.  A  certain  district,  as  you  may  say 
a  township, — a  state, — has  two,  and  so  does  Massachusetts,  and 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  125 

no  more,  no  matter  what  the  population  is,  no  matter  what 
the  valuation  is,  each  state  has  two  senators.  And  I  have 
turned  it  right  around  and  let  the  state  district  for  senators — 
and  get  your  representation  from  the  town  system  and  your 
ward  system — I  can  see  the  inequality.  It  is  a  hard  matter 
to  do  and  not  have  something  unequal.  It  is  diflftcult  for  me 
to  plan  the  thing-  in  such  a  way  it  will  come  out  absolutely 
equal. 

Mr.  intone  of  Anctover. — In  the  Convention  of  1902,  and  in  prior 
Conventions,  the  question  of  town  representation,  and  the  dis- 
trict system,  were  thoroughly-  discussed  and  threshed  out, 
many  apparent!}-  seeing  the  injustice  in  the  town  system  as 
not  giving  an  equality  of  representation,  biit  behind  the  town 
system  is  a  sentiment — the  old  New  England  town  meeting — 
and  if  we  do  anything  we  should  do  something  that  can  stand. 

The  Convention  of  1902,  I  think,  was  primarily  called  by  the 
people  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. Many  arguments  were  made  as  to  the  expense  that 
would  be  necessary  to  enlarge  the  State  house.  That  condi- 
tion has  passed.  There  is  not  the  necessity,  at  least  it  is  not 
felt  by  the  people  at  the  present  time,  to  reduce  the  House 
of  Representatives.  And  no  radical  measure,  in  my  judgment, 
will  be  adopted  by  the  people.  In  fact,  we  might  as  well  state 
it  as  it  really  is.  We  were  not  called  here  for  that  purpose; 
only  a  small  proportion  of  the  people  of  the  state  wanted  a 
Convention.  It  was  only  through  a  mix-up  on  the  "yes"  and 
"no"  on  the  license  question  that  we  came  here.  A  great  many 
people  in  New  Hampshire  did  not  see  that  any  great  change 
was  necessary. 

The  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Langdon, 
Mr.  Winch,  is  too  radical.  The  larger  towns  will  not  stand  it, 
the  cities  will  not  stand  it.  It  is  not  necessary  to  talk  about 
small  towns.  I  believe  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  want  to 
preserve  our  town  system.  Shall  we  reduce  the  representa- 
tion? The  resolution  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Man- 
chester, seems  very  nearly  to  meet  the  demand.  That  reduces 
it  nearly  a  hundred.  Suppose  we  reduce  it  but  fifty?  I  say, 
judging  from  the  vote,  and  the  Constitutional  Convention 
in  1902,  that  no  radical  measure  can  ever  pass  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire,  but  a  measure  preserving  the  town  system. 
And  if  the  small  towns,  and  large  towns,  and  the  cities,  each, 
should  concede  something, — giving  them  proper  representation, 
as  it  seems  to  me  some  of  these  bills  do,  then  the  amendment 
will  be  adopted  by  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.   Dean   of  Danhury. — The   question    of   a    reduction   of   the 


126    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

House  of  Representatives,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  town,  or 
the  adoption  of  the  district,  system  has  changed  some  in  the 
past  year.  When  large  interests  were  dominant  in  this  state, 
and'  in  other  states,  the  basis  of  representation  on  an  equal,  or 
comparatively  equal,  division  of  population, — when  the  inter- 
ests were  largely  political, — had  more  weight  than  today. 
Today  the  business  is  of  an  industrial  nature  and  is  centered 
around  certain  localities;  the  town  is  built  up,  and  the  people 
vote,  and  taxes  are  based  on  our  business  centers.  In  that 
way  our  representation,  which  possibly  might  have  been  con- 
sidered unfair  for  the  large  towns,  today  is  not  unfair.  I  take 
for  Illustration  the  adjoining  towns  of  Bristol  and  Hill.  Each 
one  has  a  delegate  in  this  Convention.  Now,  if  we 
should  divide  the  towns  of  the  state  into  districts,  do  you  be- 
lieve that  Bristol,  with  its  1300  or  1400,  if  part  of  its  district 
was  joined  with  Hill,  would  consent?  Either  one  of  two  things 
would  happen,  either  Bristol  or  Hill  would  lose  its  representa- 
tive. If  there  is  to  be  any  reduction,  as  has  been  said  by  the 
previous  speaker,  we  cannot  make  it  radical.  Either  we  must 
maintain  the  town  system  or  adopt  the  district  system.  If  we 
maintain  the  town  system,  the  reduction  must  come  from  the 
cities.  You  are  aware  that  brings  you  closer  together,  and 
after  you  get  together  your  interests  harmonize,  and  a  few 
men  can  represent  you  people  in  the  cities  as  well  as  many. 
If  it  is  desired  in  any  locality,  or  class  of  people  in  towns  or 
cities,  to  maintain  the  balance,  or  maintain  the  preponderance, 
you  are  aware  of  the  fact  in  the  distribution  of  the  Senators 
the  cities  must  maintain  the  balances  by  their  people  or  by 
the  present  method  of  the  property  basis.  The  loss  from  our 
rural  population  has  been  a  loss  to  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  the  problem  that  confronts  the  people  of  New 
Hiampshire  is  one  that  many  think  can  be  solved.  We  believe 
the  agricultural  towns  which  still  have  the  land  for  cultiva- 
tion will  be  repopulated.  Many  towns  have  advantages  for 
agriculture  and  we  believe  that  the  time  is  coming  when  in- 
dustrious population  is  going  to  those  towns  tagain.  We  all 
recognize  the  value  of  that  class  of  population.  While  we 
from  the  towns  appreciate  the  little  bouquets  thrown  at  us,  we 
keep  in  mind  this  one  thing;  That  our  cities  in  their  pros- 
perity have  been  built  up  of  men  of  ingenuity,  intelligence  and 
ability.  With  that  fact  before  us,  Gentlemen,  we  hope  the 
cities  with  their  ability  to  get  together,  their  "ability  to  main- 
tain their  interests  by  their  ballots,  will  be  willing  to  concede 
something,  if  we  must  reduce  this  representation,  to  still  main- 
tain,  if    possible,   the   representation,    as   far   as    consistent,   in 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  127 

the  rural  towns.  We  hope  the  time  is  coming  when  the  popu- 
lation will  increase  in  these  towns,  so  we  can  send  down  repre- 
sentation to  work  with  you, — to  work  in  harmony  for  the  State 
of  New  Hampshire. 

Mj\  Bean  of  Belmont. — The  remarks  by  the  g-entleman  from 
Andover,  Mr.  Stone,  strike  a  responsive  line  of  thought  in  my 
mind.  I  believe  that  the  people  of  the  state  are  in  favor  of  a 
reduction  in  the  size  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  To  my 
mind  that  was  the  motive  that  prompted  them  when  they  voted 
in  favor  of  calling  this  Constitutional  Convention.  I  do  not 
know  about  what  mixup  there  may  have  been  in  some  of  the 
cities  in  voting  upon  this  question,  connecting  it  with  the 
license  question,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  people  voted  to  have 
this  Constitutional  Convention.  And  I  believe  the  prime  mo- 
tive of  those  who  voted  in  favor  was  the  reduction  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  test 
public  sentiment  in  different  sections, — whenever  I  have  been 
brought  in  contact  with  any  group  of  people  upon  any  occa- 
sion,— I  have  found  that  the  majority  of  those  present  thought 
that  there  should  be  a  reduction  in  the  size  of  the  House  of 
Representatives.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  question  of  how 
that  shall  be  done,  that  presents  the  difficulty.  The  towns 
want  to  retain  their  representation.  They  dislike  to  give  that 
up.  The  cities  do  not  want  to  lose  their  share  in  the  legisla- 
tive influence  of  the  state.  Now,  the  question  comes:  If  there 
is  to  be  a  reduction,  how  are  we  going  to  do  it;  how  shall  we 
bring  it  about?  I  know  of  no  way,  only  a  fair  reduction — a 
fair  projiortion  between  the  cities  and  the  towns.  Now  one 
bill  that  has  been  presented  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Surry — 
I  don't  remember  his  name — provides  a  basis  of  800  inhabi- 
tants for  the  first  representative  and  it  uses  2,000  as  the  in- 
creasing mean — that  reduces  the  House  about  100  members,  or 
a  little  more,  perhaps.  And,  as  I  have  hastily  figured  out  how 
the  reduction  is  borne  by  the  cities  and  the  towns,  I  find  that 
about  42  or  43  per  cent  falls  upon  the  cities,  and  57  or  58  per 
cent  upon  the  towns,  judging,  or  using  the  size  of  the  past 
House  of  Representatives.  Now,  in  that  case,  the  reduction 
falls  very  nearly  equally  upon  the  two  sections.  The  per  cent, 
in  the  past  House,  of  the  cities,  I  think,  was  about  37 
or  38,  and  the  towns  62  or  63  per  cent,  so  that  the  reduction 
under  the  system  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Surry  does 
not  work  a  great  disadvantage.  It  is  true  that  the  cities  might 
suffer  a  trifle  more  in  the  reduction  than  the  towns,  but  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  provide  any  method  by  which  the  reduc- 
tion will  fall  just  equally  between  the  two  sections.     We  hear  a 


128    JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

great  deal  said  about  the  district  system.  Now  I  am  willing  to 
concede  personally,  in  considering  representation,  if  we  con- 
sider population,  numbers  alone,  without  anything  else,  then 
the  district  system  is  fair  and  all  right.  But  somehow  or 
other,  at  least  I  think  that,  a  town  containing  one  thousand 
inhabitants,  we  will  say,  with  forty  or  fifty  or  sixty  square 
miles  of  territory  and  embracing  within  its  limits  its  varied 
interests,  schools,  highways,  forestry  conservation,  transporta- 
tion, summer  boarding  business,  and  other  interests, — it  seems 
as  though  those  one  thousand  people  have  more  interest, 
more  at  stake  in  the  legislation  of  New  Hampshire,  than  one 
thousand  people  would  have  perhaps  occiipying  forty  square 
rods  of  territory  in  some  of  our  larger  cities.  And  I  say  this, 
with  all  due  respect  to  the  people  living  in  the  city,  but  they 
live,  as  has  been  remarked  here  this  afternoon,  they  live 
closer  together,  their  interests  are  so  woven  and  interwoven 
that  it  is  not  a  difficult  proposition  for  one  man  to  represent 
them,  but  in  the  country  town  it  is  different,  the  interests  of 
the  two  sections  are  not  the  same,  and  I  believe  that  we 
should  consider  this,  when  trying  to  determine  the  basis  of 
representation. 

Mr.  Busiel  of  Laconia. — It  is  sometimes  .good  in  the  discussion 
of  any  question  to  try  to  see  ourselves  as  others  see  us,  and 
I  make  that  remark  in  connection  with  what  I  see  here  in  the 
Monitor  of  today,  taken  from  the  Lowell  Courier-Citizen: 

"New  Hampshire  now  has  a  chance,  with  a  Constitutional 
Convention  in  session,  to  prepare  for  a  better-balanced  legis- 
lature to  replace  the  present  absurdity.  As  now  constituted 
the  Senate  has  24  members  and  the  House  400.  Already  a  plan 
is  before  the  Convention  to  increase  the  Senate  to  50  and  re- 
duce the  House  to  about  260.  This  is  nearly  in  line  with  the 
membership  in  this  state.  But  New  Hampshire,  while  she  is 
about  it,  should  cut  the  figure  in  both  instances.  Both  houses 
might  be  made  smaller  than  is  proposed.  There  is  no  reason 
why  every  town  in  the  state  should  have  a  representative;  the 
district  system  as  we  have  it  here  is  better.  That  is  based  on 
population,  which  is  the  only  fair  way.  That  is  even  recog- 
nized in  the  New  Hampshire  proposal — "  And  I  do  not  know 
to  which  proposal  this  refers — "which  gives  Claremont  three 
representatives,  while  the  rule  is  one,  and  Manchester  live 
while  all  the  other  cities  have  three  apiece.  The  Massachu- 
setts plan,  with  a  similar  ratio,  would  give  New  Hampshire  an 
ideal  legislature  so  far  as  size  is  concerned." 

I  had  the  pleasure.  Gentlemen,  ten  years  ago  of  listening  to 
the  discussion  of  this  whole  question  at  the  Convention  which 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  129 

was  held  at  that  time,  and  of  which  I  was  a  member.  I  came 
here  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  idea  that  the  only  fair,  just 
and  proper  representation  for  any  state  is  a  representation 
based'  upon  population.  I  came  here  with  the  knowledge  that 
the  state  of  Xew^  Hampshire  recognized  it  already  in  its  Sen- 
ate. It  is  true  in  the  case  of  senators,  we  take  into  account 
the  question  of  property  in  the  district,  and  that  I  would 
abolish,  and  there  is  a  resolution  before  us  to  abolish  it,  but 
as  near  as  ma^'  be  the  districts  are  divided  very  closely  for 
representation  in  our  Senate  as  to  population.  I  believe  that 
is  the  only  fair,  true  and  just  way,  too.  I  was  born  in  a  town, 
which  at  the  time  of  my  birth  was  practically  a  farming  town. 
It  was  the  town  of  Gilford.  And  to  show  you  that  town  lines 
have  no  sanctity,  and  that  town  lines  have  been  made  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  simply  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
venience, and  sometimes  to  suit  the  whim  of  some  men,  I  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  town  of  Gilford  has  been  divided 
three  times  in  my  lifetime.  The  city  of  Laconia,  when  it  was 
made  Laconia,  was  taken  from  the  town  of  Meredith.  The 
town  division  there  was  made  chiefly  for  convenience  of  voting, 
as.  the  larger  number  of  voters  were  in  the  end  of  the  town 
which  is  now  Laconia,  and  had  to  travel  nine  miles  in  order 
to  vote,  and  Gilford  has  been  divided  as  suited  men's  con- 
venience. There  is  no  such  thing  as  sanctity  in  town  lines. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  depriving  a  man  of  his  rights,  or  his 
privileges,  by  adopting  in  the  state  of  Xew  Hampshire  a  dis- 
trict system.  The  argument  that  has  been  made  that  it  will 
deprive  men  in  small  towns  of  the  privilege  of  coming  to  this 
legislature  will  not  be  borne  out  upon  investigation.  The  men 
of  ability  in  the  small  towns  in  a  district,  are  just  as  sure 
to  rise  to  the  surface  and  be  nominated  to  come  to  the  Legis- 
lature, when  the  time  comes,  as  a  cork  is  to  bob  up  out  of 
the  water.  You  cannot  repress  ability,  you  cannot  repress 
fitness,  you  cannot  help  the  men  in  the  small  towns  which 
make  np  a  district  from  asserting  themselves,  and  coming  to 
3^our  legislature,  and  having  all  the  privileges  they  now  have 
from  the   towns,  but  I  trust  not  so  man}^  of  them. 

It  is  perfectly  plain  to  any  man  who  comes  here  and  hears 
the  arguments  that  are  advanced  by  advocates  of  the  town 
system  like  this,  for  example,  that  you  get  a  better  repre- 
sentation from  the  town  than  you  do  from  the  city,  and  that 
the  character  of  the  population  in  the  towns  is  better  than 
the  character  of  the  population  in  the  cities  (and  therefore 
they  should  have  more  representatives),  that  such  argument 
can  proceed  from  onh'  one  direction  that  is,  having  the  power. 


130    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  small  towns  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  mean  to  hang 
on  to  it.  If  I  were  a  politician  instead  of  a  business-  man,  and 
1  wanted  delegates  from  the  small  towns  of  New  Hampshire 
to  nominate  me  for  some  office,  I  should  not  come  here  and 
make  any  such  argument  as  I  am  trying  to  make  here,  Gentle- 
men. But  1  come  here  as  a  business  man,  who  has  been  in 
the  habit  of  conducting  his  business  with  the  least  number  of 
people  that  he  can  employ  to  conduct  the  business  properly, 
and  still  do  business  to  an  advantage.  And  when  I  hear  the 
arguments  made  that,  in  a  state  of  430,000  people,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  maintain  a  House  of  400  and  a  Senate  of  24,  and  then 
add  to  it  up  to  the  number  of  50  in  the  Senate,  as  some  have 
proposed,  1  say.  Gentlemen,  there  is  no  reason  in  it,  except 
there  is,  may  be,  some  sentimental  reason,  and  I  expect  before 
the  arguments  are  over  the  sentimental  reason  will  be  ad- 
vanced, as  it  was  when  I  was  in  the  last  Convention  by  an  able 
man  of  that  Convention,  who  is  now  dead,  Hon.  Henry  O.  Kent, 
and  whose  remarks  were  chiefly  made  up  of  sentimental  rea- 
sons whj'  the  House  should  not  be  reduced.  It  is  worthy  of 
consideration  by  this  Convention,  that  all  our  great  states  to 
the  west  of  us,  beyond  New  York,  have  been  very  largely  set- 
tled, and  their  governments  very  largely  established,  by  the 
men  from  New  England — very  largely  from  New  Hampshire. 
Many  of  the  greatest  and  brightest  men  that  have  come  to 
our  Congress  from  the  western  states,  have  come  from  the 
New  England  men,  who  went  there  and  settled.  It  is  a  re- 
markable thing,  and  to  my  mind  worthy  of  thought,  that  in 
those  great  states,  where  the  population  has  gone  on  increas- 
ing until  some  of  them  count  their  population  by  the  millions, 
the  people  haven't  insisted  upon  town  representation.  Imagine 
what  the  state  of  Illinois  would  have  today  had  it  town  and 
ward  representaion,  as  has  been  proposed  here.  Imagine  the 
size  of  its  legislature.  Those  states  out  there  have  all  found 
that  they  can  get  along  and  do  their  business  with  a  much 
less  number  of  people  in  their  legislature  than  we  have  here. 
Now,  Gentlemen,  if  you  will  stop  and  think  of  another  aspect 
of  this  matter,  and  suppose  you  should  adopt  the  district  sys- 
tem in  New  Hampshire,  and,  in  j'our  first  trial  of  it,  you  should 
say  you  would  fix  the  number  of  people  to  serve  as  a  district 
so  that  you  would  have  300  members  in  the  House,  then  it 
is  perfectly  evident  that  in  a  town  of  about  1400  people  you 
would  have  one  representative.  If  you  will  go  and  look 
through  the  population  of  your  towns,  you  will  see  you  are  not 
going  to  sacrifice  such  a  great  number  of  towns,  even  if  you 
should    adopt    the    district    system    in    New    Hampshire,    which 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  131 

would  give  the  state  a  House  of  300  members.  If  you  should 
do  anything-  of  that  kind,  you  would  at  once  have  established 
a  fixe^A  number  in  your  House,  something  greatly  to  be  desired. 
You  would  not  have  this  ever-reeurring  problem  as  to  what 
the  size  of  your  House  is  going  to  be.  I  don't  think  it  is 
worthy  of  discussion  here  for  a  minute  as  to  the  question  of 
the  ability  of  the  men  from  towns  or  the  ability  of  men  from 
the  cities.  I  don't  think  that  question  enters  into  it.  A  man 
from  the  town  moves  into  the  city;  if  he  has  the  ability  he  is 
going  to  be  recognized  immediately — and  he   always  is. 

Now,  I  want  to  bring  out  another  thing  in  my  talk,  and  that 
is  this,  So  far  as  representation  and  the  smaller  number  600 
for  a  member  is  concerned,  I  should  be  bound  in  represent- 
ing my  ward  in  my  city,  if  I  were  representing  it  as  a  ward,  to 
take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  I  am  in  the  smallest  ward 
in  Laconia.  It  has  but  one  representative  under  any  scheme 
that  is  proposed,  and  so  far  as  my  ward  is  concerned  it  would 
not  be  affected  one  way  or  the  other.  I  do  not  take  that  into 
account.  I  think  the  city  of  Laconia  under  one  bill  may  have 
six,  and  under  another  may  have  another  number.  I  know  the 
city  of  Laconia  could  get  along  if  it  had  but  six  repre- 
sentatives. I  think  it  would  get  along  and  do  business  if  it 
only  bad  one.  They  have  this  system  in  Vermont  and  they 
have  it  in  Connecticut,  and  they  know  it  as  the  "rotten 
borough"  system.  But  there  is  no  such  thing  as  equality 
about  it  and  they  cannot  remedy  it  because  the  small  towns 
have  the  majority  the  same  as  you  from  small  towns  have  the 
majority  here,  and,  having  the  majority,  and,  having  a  good 
thing,  you  are  not  going  to  give  it  up.  That  is  the  trouble- 
some matter  with  the  whole  problem.  Now  it  is  an  unfor- 
tunate fact,  Gentlemen,  that  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
we  are  going  to  undergo  a  change  towards  the  "rotten 
borough"  system  unless  you  adopt  a  district  system.  It  is  an 
unfortunate  fact, — I  regret  it — that  whatever  gain  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  made  in  the  last  census  was  due  to  its  gain 
in  the  cities  and  large  towns,  and  it  is  an  unfortunate  fact  that 
whatever  loss  it  had  was  due  to  the  loss  in  the  small  towns. 
In  the  year  1900,  the  city  population  was  41.7  per  cent;  the 
town  population  was  58.3  per  cent  of  the  whole  population. 
In  the  year  1910,  the  city  population  had  increased  to  45.4  per 
cent,  and  the  town  population  had  decreased  to  54.6  per  cent. 
It  has  been  stated  here  by  one  of  the  men,  who  made  an 
argument  in  relation  to  this  gain — I  think  the  gentleman  from 
Belmont,  Mr.  Bean, — in  examining  the  ratio  of  representation 
between  the  city  and  the  town,  that  the  city  had  38  per  cent 


132    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  representation,  and  the  town  62  per  cent  of  representation 
in  1900. 

In  1900  you  will  see  the  towns  had  58  per  cent,  population, 
and  the  cities  41  per  cent,  and  that  the  representation  was 
relatively  greater  in  the  town  than  it  was  in  the  citj^  and  you 
will  see,  too,  that  in  comparison  with  1910,  the  disparity  will  be 
still  greater  and  worse  for  the  cities.  While  the  city  repre- 
sentation is  38  and  the  town  representation  is  62,  the  town 
population  is  decreasing  and  the  city  population  is  increasing. 
The  state  of  New  Hampshire  according  to  the  last  census  in 
the  cities  gained  24,000  people.  I  haven't  included  in  this  the 
larger  towns — there  was  a  gain  in  the  large  towns.  In  the 
cities  alone  in  New  Hampshire  the  population  increased  24,000. 
In  the  towns  there  was  a  loss  of  5,000.  It  is  perfectly  plain 
that  the  logical  result  of  this  is  going  to  be  some  time  that 
there  will  be  a  greater  disparity  between  the  cities  and  the 
towns  than  there  is  now,  because  it  is  a  fact  that  your  cities 
and  large  towns  are  increasing,  and  it  is  -a  fact  that  your  small 
towns  are  decreasing  in  population.  I  have  no  prejudice 
against  the  small  towns  at  all.  I  w^as  born  in  a  country  town 
myself — what  we  called  a  country  town.  And  I  have  sympathy 
with  any  movement  on  the  part  of  the  men  living  in  the  small 
towns  to  hold  on  to  what  they  have  got,  if  they  won't  be  too 
unfair  about  it.  If  they  think  it  is  all  right;  if  they  think  it  is 
wise  not  to  have  a  district  system  in  New  Hampshire,  but  to 
adhere  to  this  old  method,  I  have  sympathy  with  them.  But  I 
don't  think  it  is  right.  I  don't  think  it  is  just.  I  don't  think 
you  can  ever  make  inequality  right.  It  is  almost  amusing  to 
read  the  amendments  introduced,  and  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing this  representation  as  nearly  equal  as  possible,  they  go  on 
so  and  so,  and  then  one  man  says  he  wall  have  it  600  for  one 
representative  and  1,000  for  the  next,  and  one  man  says,  "I  will 
have  it  800  for  one,"  and  so  on.  The  thing  is  a  joke.  "In  order 
to  make  things  equal  as  we  can,"  another  says,  "we  -will  nave 
600  for  one,  and  3,000  for  the  next."  Six  hundred  men  shall 
choose  one  and  3,000  men  shall  choose  the  next.  It  takes  five 
to  one  to  choose  the  second.  There  is  no  such  thing  as 
equality  about  it,  and,  as  I  said  before,  it  is  almost  a  joke  to  see 
the  language  of  the  amendments  that  have  been  put  in  here 
relating  to  this  matter  of  changing  the  representation.  Now 
you  cannot  avoid  that  inequality,  and  it  will  grow  worse.  The 
only  true  remedy  is  a  district  system.  Your  cities  and  large 
towns  will  keep  on  growing;  your  smaller  towns  will  not  grow, 
but  go  on  losing  population.  I  know  they  are  desirable  for 
summer  population.     I  yield  to  nobody  in  appreciation  of  what 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  133 

the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  to  offer  to  the  public  in  the 
way  of  our  beautiful  lakes  and  mountains.  I  live  near  the 
shores  of  the  beautiful  Lake  Winnepesaukee,  and  have  enjoyed 
some  of  the  happiest  hours  of  my  life  sailing  on  it,  but  we 
are  here  to  look  at  things  as  they  are.  We  are  not  here  to 
look  at  this  matter  from  a  sentimental  standpoint.  We  ar^i 
here  to  try  to  do  things  in  a  business  way.  We  are  here  to 
do  what  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  expects  us  to  do,  and  the 
question  is  not  in  my  mind  at  all  as  to  which  man's  plan  shall 
prevail  here,  and  whether  it  shall  be  600  for  one  and  2,000  for 
the  next  and  3,000  for  the  next,  or  anything  of  that  kind.  I 
repudiate  utterly  all  such  attempts  to  whittle  this  subject  into 
shape.  I  say  we  are  here  to  discuss  the  question  simply  on 
this  ground:  Are  we  prepared  as  members  of  this  Convention 
to  offer  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  a  district  system,  the 
only  fair,  square,  honest  way  of  representing  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire,  or  shall  we  recommend  to  them  something 
which  will  maintain  the  present  inequality,  or  make  matters 
worse.  To  that  I  am  opposed.  I  have  no  Interest  in  it  except 
as  a  man  desiring  to  see  things  done  in  a  fair  way  in  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire.  I  know  you  cannot  accomplish  it  under 
the  present  system.  I  am  not  particular  what  the  number 
shall  be,  if  you  propose  a  district  system.  It  may  be  300,  as 
has  been  suggested  here,  which  would  give  a  town  of  1400 
people  one  representative.  I  don't  think  it  is  necessary  to 
have  that  at  all.  When  the  great  state  of  New  York  with 
8,000,000  people  can  do  all  its  business,  and  do  it  satisfac- 
torily, in  an  assembly  of  150  men,  I  say  that  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  does  not  need  any  four  or  five  hundred  ])eo- 
ple  to  do  its  law  making.  I  say  it  is  a  waste  of  good  material; 
it  is  taking  men  from  their  business  where  they  can  be  more 
profitably  employed — wdth  too  many  in  the  legislature,  many 
are  wasting  their  time  in  trying  to  legislate  for  the  p'^'sople. 

I  did  not  come  here  with  the  expectation  that  we  should 
probably  ett'ect  such  a  revolution  as  a  district  system.  Ten 
years  ago  I  came  here  feeling  just  as  I  do  today,  that  it  is 
the  only  straight,  square  way  to  divide  up  representation  in  the 
state,  and  I  ^vish  it  could  be  adopted.  I  know  the  men  in  the 
small  towns  are  nourishing  fears  which  would  never  mate- 
rialize. I  know  the  men  of  ability  in  the  small  towns  would 
get  the  nomination  just  the  same  as  they  do  now,  if  they  were 
living  in  a  district  made  up  of  these  towns.  You  cannot  re- 
press a  man  who  has  got  genius  and  power  and  ability;  the 
people  will  see  it,  and  the  man  in  a  district — no  matter  how 
small  his  town  is — will  come  to   the   surface,  and  will  get  the 


IM     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

nomination.  I  do  not  regard  that  argument  worthy  of  a 
thought.  I  have  seen  the  small  towns  dictate  the  nomination 
in  the  counties.  I  think  the  men  of  the  small  towns  are  just 
as  sharp  and  able  to  make  political  schemes  as  the  men  in 
cities,  and  they  will  hold  up  their  end  every  time,  and  the  man 
from  the  small  town  will  get  his  chance  of  coming  here  just 
the  same  as  he  comes  now.  I  do  not  think  that  argument  is 
worthy  of  attention.  I  thank  you,  gentlemen,  for  your  atten- 
tion. 

Mr.  Towle  of  North/ioood. — I  think  this  district  system  is  just 
as  fair  as  it  would  be  to  put  a  small  fish  in  with  a  big  one; 
it  will  work  just  the  same;  the  large  fish  will  eat  the  small 
one.  We  have  the  district  system  in  senatorial  representation. 
Last  year  the  senator  belonged  in  our  town.  We  are  a  small 
town.  Somersworth  said:  "It  belongs  to  your  town.  There  is 
no  doubt  about  it."  We  had  two  men  who  wanted  the  office; 
the  question  was,  which  one  should  have  it.  Instead  of  letting 
US  decide  the  question,  Somersworth  said,  "You  have  got  trou- 
ble in  your  town,  and  we  have  men  to  put  in  as  candidates,  a 
Eepublican  and  a  Democrat."  They  elected  the  Democrat.  Are 
you,  who  are  Republicans,  going  to  vote  for  a  Democrat,  for 
the  sake  of  having  a  representative,  and  are  you  Democrats 
going  to  vote  for  a  Republican  with  the  same  object? 

I  was  talking  with  a  man  from  Massachusetts  with  regard 
to  the  Massachusetts  laws.  He  is  living  there.  I  said:  "How 
do  you  like  the  district  .system  down  there?"  He  said,  "It 
works  very  well."  I  said  "Do  you  have  any  trouble  with  the 
smaller  tov^ms  getting  any  show?"  "Well,  sometimes,"  he  said, 
"we  do."  I  said,  "What  do  you  do?"  "Well,"  he  said,  "We 
club  together  a  few  towns  and  elect  a  man  on  the  other  side 
to  show  them  we  are  going  to  have  our  way,  and  then  they 
come  to  time."  Are  you  Republicans  going  to  vote  for  a 
Democrat  for  the  sake  of  getting  your  way?  Are  you  Demo- 
crats going  to  vote  for  a  Republican  to  get  your  way  In  your 
town?  I  say  there  is  no  reason  in  it.  I  say  every  country 
town,  which  has  the  ability, — which  most  have, — should  be 
represented  in  the  House.  I  for  one  would  rather  see  it  re- 
main as  it  is  than  to  cut  down.  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why 
Manchester  should  send  60  representatives  and  I  don't  see  any 
reason  for  the  large  towns  to  send  two  representatives  when 
one  would  do.  Cut  the  representation  in  the  House  to  some- 
thing like  300;  it  seems  as  though  that  would  be  much  better 
for  the  state.  I  don't  like  to  make  myself  conspicuous  on 
this  line.  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  from  the  coun- 
try  towns,   and  every   man   from   the   cities  to   see  it  is  fairly 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  135 

represented  in  this  matter.  It  is  said  one  man  can  reprcsont 
a  thousand  better  in  the  city  than  one  man  can  represent  three 
hundred  in  the  town.  There  is  no  question  about  that;  every- 
body knows  it,  and  I  hope  we  won't  cut  down  the  representa- 
tion so  as  to  injure  the  cities  or  the  country  towns. 

Mr.  Davis  of  New  Ipswich. — ^Gentlemen,  with  all  due  respect 
to  the  honorable  gentleman  who  enlightened  us  with  news 
from  Massachusetts,  I  feel  in  duty  bound  to  say  that  in  ray 
opinion,  the  press  and  the  honorable  gentlemen  of  New  Hamp- 
shire are  perfectly  capable  of  advising  the  delegates  how  to 
act  in  this  matter,  without  calling  on  the  press  of  Massachu- 
setts, or  any  other  state. 

Gentlemen,  in  justice  to  yourselves,  to  this  cause,  and  to  my- 
self, I  feel  I  ought  to  say  that  though  I  am  comparatively 
speaking  a  stranger  to  the  majority  of  you,  believ^  me,  1  am 
not  a  stranger  to  hundreds  of  thousand  •»  of  men  throughout 
this  United  States,  for  the  very  good  reason  that,  for  twenty- 
five  years  of  my  life,  it  was  so  ordered  that  I  was  obliged  to 
come  in  daily  contact  with  hundreds  of  different  men  and 
women.  Of  necessity.  Gentlemen,  I  was  obliged  to  study  their 
characters,  their  tendencies,  their  desires  and  their  needs. 
Gentlemen,  I  believe  that  I  know  men,  and  I  believe  that, 
because  of  that,  I  am  competent  in  a  way  to  counsel  yen  in 
this  matter,  and  so.  Gentlemen  (I  am  going  to  be  brief  for 
there  are  others  who  want  to  speak),  I  will  say  that  my  ex- 
perience in  the  small  towns,  and  in  the  cities,  prompts  me  to 
declare  that  if  the  small  town  wants  justice,  cciuity,  protec- 
tion and  defence,  she  will  see  to  it  that  she  is  individually 
represented  in  these  legislative  halls. 

Mr.  Barney  of  Canaan. — I  want  to  throw  an  idea  into  tliis 
debate  which  I  believe  has  not  yet  been  touched  upon.  You 
have  talked  about  small  towns  and  about  cities,  and  about  the 
representation.  I  will  keep  you  but  a  minute,  but  I  want  to 
say  just  here  the  small  towns  are  made  up  of  farmers,  the  men 
who  have  got  farms  of  fifty  or  one  hundred  acres,  and  some- 
times 150.  Cities  are  made  up  largely  of  men  who  simply  pay  a 
poll  tax,  and  those  men  are  a  great  many  of  them  foreigners, 
Poles  and  Greeks,  and  that  class  of  people,  who  don't  know  what 
they  are  voting  for,  or  who  they  are  voting  for  very  many  times. 
Now,  Gentlemen,  I  want  to  ask  you,  which  class  of  people  are 
most  deserving  of  representation:  The  men  in  the  towns  who 
pay  taxes  on  their  larms  and  on  their  cattle,  who  have  an  inter- 
est in  the  welfare  of  their  farms,  who  do  everything  to  bring 
up  their  town  to  a  higher  standard,  or  the  men  in  the  cities 
who  work  in  the  mills,  who  think  only  of  pay-day,  and  if  they 


136      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

are  assessed  a  poll  tax  will  often  sneak  out  without  paying 
It?  I  think  a  few  men  in  a  countrj^  town,  say  a  hundred 
men  in  a  country  town,  are  more  worthy  of  representation  in 
this  legislature  than  a  thousand  people  in  the  city  who  simply 
pay  poll  taxes.  I  want  to  impress  this  little  fact  on  you  just 
now. 

Mr.  Herbert  of  Rumiiey. — It  seems  to  me  the  general  idea  of 
almost  everybody  here  is  that  the  House  is  too  large,  and  that 
the  small  towns  ought  to  be  represented,  which  I  agree  to,  as 
long  as  I  am  from  one.  It  doesn't  seem  to  me  that  it  is  neces- 
sary for  the  citj'  of  Manchester  to  have  forty  men  to  repre- 
sent it  when  the  gentleman  from  Laconia  says  that  thej^  would 
prosper  fairly  well  if  they  didn't  have  but  one.  If  they  could 
get  along  with  one,  Manchester  could  with  half  of  what  they 
have,  and  so  with  all  these  other  large  cities.  I  want 
to  say  only  just  a  word.  It  seems  to  be  the  idea  of  all  that 
the  House  is  too  large.  Now  we  have  got  resolutions  of  all 
kinds  and  sizes  here,  and  it  seems  to  me  we  might  be  smart 
enough  to  pick  out  one  among  them,  and  follow  it,  and  cut 
down  the  House.  We  have  tried  it  for  a  number  of  sessions, 
and  never  have  made  any  headway;  but  it  seems  to  be  now 
more  consistent  with  the  whole  feeling  of  the  country  than  it 
has  ever  been  before,  and  I  hope  that  we  may  come 
to  some  conclusion  whereby  we  can  accept  some  amendment. 
I  like  the  plan  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  but  I  am  not 
particular.  I  would  rather  see  the  towns  classed,  if  we  can- 
not do  any  better,  than  not  to  have  the  representation  cut 
down.  I  think  that  is  what  we  are  here  for,  and  I  hope  that 
we  can  come  to  some  satisfactory  conclusion. 

Mr.  Young  of  Manclwster. — Before  this  discussion  goes  any 
further,  I  should  like  to  be  enlightened  on  one  point.  I  should 
like  to  have  some  member  who  favors  the  reduction  inform  me 
why  the  House  is  too  large.  Nearly  everj^  speaker  has  said 
it  is  too  large  but  none  have  told  us  how  they  came  to  that 
conclusion.  Let  us  have  something  specific  to  argue  upon 
other  than  the  bare  statement  that  the  House  is  too  large. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. — The  question  asked  by  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester  is  easily  answered.  It  costs  us  from  $90,000 
to  $100,000  for  our  legislature.  If  we  reduce  the  membership 
by  110,  we  shall  be  saving  $22,000  to  the  taxpayers  of  New 
Hampshire,   and    get    the   same    results.     This   is    one   reason. 

Mr.  Shute  of  Wentioorth. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  the  first  thing  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  is 
the  statement  of  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill,  that  the  state 
is  not  a   confederation   of   towns.     Now   it  is   supposed   that   a 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  137 

man  of  his  learning  and  his  physical  dimensions  would  stand 
up  here  and  tell  the  truth,  but  he  didn't.  The  fact  is  the  towns 
existed  before  the  state.  We  were  colonies  and  then  we  were 
a  confederation  of  towns,  and  made  a  state  of,  the  same  as 
the  United  States  were  colonies,  then  a  confederation  of 
states,  then  followed  the  United  States.  When  Congress  makes 
laws  for  the  United  States  it  means  each  and  every  state. 
When  it  is  legislation  for  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  it 
means  every  town  in  the  state.  That  is  what  it  means.  When 
a  man  saj^s  this  is  not  a  confederation  of  towns,  it  is  contrary 
to  the  facts.  Everybody  who  has  read  history,  knows  we  were 
little  commonwealths  before  there  was  ever  any  state,  then 
to  form  the  state  we  took  in  the  confederation  of  the  towns. 
So  much  for  my  view  of  what  constitutes  a  state. 

Now  I  want  to  look  at  this  question  as  a  farmer  from  a 
pro-rated  town.  When  you  say  that  the  pro-rated  town  has 
equal  representation  and  equal  taxation,  40,000  people  by  this 
proposition  of  800  are  going  to  be  disfranchised.  Yet  there  is 
a  proposition  here  to  enfranchise  women;  40,000  men  are  go- 
ing to  be  disfranchised  and  we  are  going  to  enfranchise 
women.  Good  God!  charity  begins  at  home.  We  want  the 
towns  represented.  Mr.  Busiel  says  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
town  sentiment.  Who  composed  "Home  Sweet  Home?"  Who 
cheers  the  "Star  Spangled  Banner?"  What  carries  New  Hamp- 
shire into  battle  except  the  sentiment  to  maintain  the  honor 
of  the  state?  Is  that  not  sentiment?  Who  wrote  the  "Old 
Oaken  Bucket?"  Wasn't  it  sentiment?  Certainly  it  was.  We 
want  to  cultivate  that  sentiment.  We  want  to  cultivate  it  so 
the  very  edges  of  the  commonwealth  of  New  Hampshire  will 
be  just  as  much  interested  in  the  glory  of  the  state  as  the 
cities.  That  is  what  we  want,  and  although  we  are  not  al- 
lowed to  come  here  and  make  the  laws,  you  can  appropriate  a 
million  dollars  for  roads  to  help  the  farmers, — as  they  say, — 
but  in  fact  it  is  for  the  automobile  interests,  so  they  can  run 
through  the  state  dealing  death,  destruction  and  devastating 
doom  as  they  go,  which  they  did  right  here  in  this  town  last 
night, — murdered  a  man  right  on  School  street.  Yet,  it  is 
said,  they  pay  many  thousand  dollars  for  licenses  and  taxes. 
True, — it  seems  to  me  I  have  read  of  a  betrayal  for  thirty 
pieces  of  silver.     Have  you  not? 

Why  go  into  the  district  system?  Now  I  have  lived  in 
Massachusetts,  and  I  do  not  hold  up  Massachusetts  as  an  ex- 
ample. I  think  New  Hampshire  has  a  right  to  do  as  she 
pleases.  If- 1  choose  to  have  ham  and  eggs  for  my  breakfast, 
it   is    nobody's    business.     It  is    nobody's    business   if    we    want 


138     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

400  representatives  in  our  House.  I  know  the  district  system 
does  not  work  well  in  Massachusetts.  I  have  lived  there.  You 
take  a  large  town  in  a  district  and  it  dictates  who  shall  repre- 
sent that  district.  The  small  town  has  no  rights  in  the  dis- 
trict,— I  can  remember  forty-o<3d  years  ago  when  there  couldn't 
be  a  senator  go  from  our  part  of  the  state  unless  he  went 
from  Littleton.  Even  I  helped  my  friend  Judge  Mitchell  to 
his  first  o£Bice,  and  I  am  proud  of  it,  but  there  are  lots  I  am  not 
proud  of.  I  believe  in  representation  of  every  town,  but  I  con- 
demn this  district  system  from  the  word  go.  Yes,  sir.  There 
is  no  fair  deal  in  it.  The  big  ones,  or  the  big  towns,  or  the 
big  men  of  the  district,  are  going  to  determine,  dictate  who 
shall  represent  them,  and  it  is  no  show  for  the  small  town. 
No,  Sir,  not  much.  Not  a  mite.  Sir,  and  you  want  to  cause  New 
Hampshire  to  be  proud  of  her  record,  and  to  be  independent 
of  all  states.  By  the  way,  I  want  to  mention  one  thing.  New 
Hampshire  has  a  record  that  no  other  state  has,  she  ruled  this 
Union  in  Jackson's  administration.  You  read  of  the  fact  that 
Daniel  Webster  was  there  and  Isaac  Hill  was  there,  and  Levi 
Woodbury,  and  New  Hampshire  was  the  Nation,  and  yet  peo- 
ple stand  up  here  and  talk  about  what  Massachusetts  does. 
At  one  time  Michigan  set  herself  up  as  being  superior  to  the 
New  England  states.  I  remember  I  was  out  there,  and  I  said 
to  a  man,  "Why  are  you  superior  to  us?"  He  said,  "Won't 
you  acknowledge  we  are  more  enterprising  in  coming  out 
here?"  I  said,  "Certainly  you  are."  I  said,  "Some  of  you  came 
because  you  were  interested  to  escape  the  gallows,  and  some 
to  escape  your  debts,  and  some  to  make  good  homes,  but,"  I 
said  "What  is  Michigan,  what  is  her  history?  Your  first  gov- 
ernor was  a  New  Hampshire  man.  And  Zachariah  Chandler, 
the  state's  idol,  is  a  New  Hampshire  man."  I  want  to  tell 
you  that  New  Hampshire  is  felt  throughout  the  Union. 

Mr.  Burnham  of  Dunharfon. — I  trust  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention will  pardon  me  if  I  make  a  repetition  of  what  has  been 
said,  as  my  hearing  is  very  poor  and  I  may  not  have  heard 
remarks  that  have  been  made,  but,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able 
to  hear,  the  gentlemen  have  ignored  the  fact  that  men  in  the 
country  towns  are  almost  universally  citizens,  permanent 
citizens,  who  will  act  and'  vote  for  just  those  things  which 
they  think  will  be  for  the  benefit  not  only  of  their  own  town 
but  of  the  whole  state,  while  the  population  of  our  cities  is 
to  a  large  degree  made  up  of  a  floating  population,  who  have 
no  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  state,  further  than  what  little 
they  individually  can  make,  casting  their  vote  one  way  or  an- 
other for  the  merest  trifle. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  139 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  had  not  contemplated  making-  any  remarks  here 
today  upon  this  question.  But,  Sir,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men of  the  Committee,  I  assure  you  that  I  am  interested,  and 
when  the  g-entleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Young-,  asked  the 
question,  Why  is  it  that  we  are  calling  for  the  reduction  of  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  of  New  Hampshire,  I  listened  for  the 
reply.  The  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Wason,  for  whom  we 
all  have  the  greatest  respect,  replied  that  it  was  a  money  con- 
sideration. Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  a  few  days  ago  confronted 
with  that  very  same  argument  in  regard  to  expediting  the 
business  of  this  session.  The  payroll  will  run  out  in  two  or 
three  weeks.  I  yield.  Sir,  to  no  man  in  my  devotion  to  econ- 
omy in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  yet,  Sir,  I  believe  that 
we  have  other  things  to  look  to  than  the  dollars  and  cents  in 
our  pockets.  And,  coming  to  that  very  question,  it  has  been 
suggested  to  me  that  if  we  reduce  the  House  we  can  increase 
the  salaries  of  those  who  go  there  so  that  they  may  be  re- 
spectably compensated.  It  has  been  my  privilege  to  sit  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  and  receive  a  less  sum  than  the 
pages.  They  earned  their  money.  I  hope  I  did.  It  is  not  a 
money  consideration.  Gentlemen,  something  more  noble  and 
higher  than  that,  I  feel. 

I  was  at  one  time  upon  the  same  side  of  the  question  that 
some  of  the  gentlemen  are  who  have  preceded  me.  Right 
here  I  want  to  apologize  for  not  having  heard  many  gentlemen 
speak  this  afternoon  on  this  question.  I  asked  the  gentleman 
from  Haverhill,  Mr.  Whitcher,  if  he  was  not  going  to  speak 
and  he  informed  me  that  he  had  spoken.  Unfortunately  I 
come  from  away  up  in  the  backwoods  and  was  unable  to  find 
a  lawyer  or  someone  else  to  draw  resolutions  which  I  think 
ought  to  come  in  here  and  which  had  not  been  introduced  and 
I  went  to  two  law  offices  and  from  the  two  succeeded  in  get- 
ting whaf  little  I  have,  sometime  after  three  o'clock,  so  I  was 
not  permitted  to  listen  to  some  of  the  remarks. 

Equality  and  justice  for  all  is  the  thing,  however.  Divide 
the  state  up  into  districts  making  1,000  or  2,000  in  population 
the  basis  for  all  representatives,  then  you  have  an  equal 
representation,  but  until  we  come  to  that  kind  of  a  division, 
I  am  for  leaving  the  membership  of  the  House  right  where 
it  is;  for  this  reason,  Mr,  Chairman,  if  no  other,  it  is  educa- 
tional. I  have  received  education  at  your  hands.  I  come  here 
and'  listen  to  the  many  able  debates  and  I  gain  knowledge, 
and  knowledge  is  what  we  want,  all  of  us,  and  if  we  can  edu- 
cate a  little  here  and  in  the  legislature,  I  think  it  is  dollars 
well  spent. 


140     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

And  ag-ain,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  used  to  say  we 
wanted  more  intelligent,  more  able  men  in  the  House.  Are 
there  any  men  in  your  city,  Mr.  Chairman,  or  in  your  town, 
Mr.  Delegate,  who  do  not  come  here  if  their  constituencj' 
wants  them?  Are  there  any  of  them  who  are  so  great,  and 
if  there  are,  will  the  cutting  down  of  the  House  stimulate  and 
bring  them  here  any  quicker  than  now?  I  believe  not.  A'.id 
again,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  found  that  when  you  go  before 
a  party  of  men  as  large  as  the  House  of  Repres-jntatives  of 
New  Hampshire,  many  of  them  from  the  plain,  common  walks 
of  life  seeking  knowledge,  and  yoa  can  get  the  matter,  the 
subject  matter,  the  actual  facts,  before  them  intelligently  ihey 
vote  honestly   and  right. 

Let  me  call  your  attention, — and  excuse  me  if  I  am  per- 
sonal, to  the  other  end  (if  we  were  in  the  legislature,  I 
would  say  the  other  end  of  this  House),  the  Senate  of  1911. 
There  we  find  a  feeling  of  greater  and  abler  men.  We  found 
men  there,  even  though  the  honest  facts  were  placed  before 
them,  even  though  they  had  solicited  your  vote,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  my  vote,  for  certain  things,  who  voted  absolutely  against 
them.  Those  were  the  big-  men  that  you  talk  about,  that  you 
want  to  bring  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  up  to,  "The 
high  standard  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York." 

No  sir,  Mr.  Chairman,  no  reduction.  I  am  in  favor  of  leav- 
ing the  representation  of  the  House  just  where  it  is,  unless 
we  can  divide  it  upon  a  basis  of  equality,  of  right  and  justice 
to    all,    individual    for   individual,   count   noses. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  for  listening  to 
me. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterhorough. — I  have  but  a  word  to  say  at  this 
stage  of  the  proceedings.  I  think  it  is  very  unfortunate  for 
the  interests  of  New  Hampshire,  to  array  the  towns  and  cities 
against  each  other.  I  think  it  is  very  unfortunate  for  this  reso- 
lution, to  have  it  pass  in  any  shape  that  will  make  the  same 
arrayal  between  the  towns  and  cities.  If  the  purpose  of  this  ar- 
rayal  is  to  let  the  representation  remain  where  it  is  today,  you 
will  accomplish  your  purpose.  If  it  is  to  make  a  change  you  must 
meet  the  issue  fairly  and  squarely  and  upon  equitable  terms. 
The  cities  must  yield,  the  towns  must  yield,  they  must  come 
together  harmoniously,  work  in  unison,  and  work  for  the  in- 
terests of  the  towns,  the  cities  and  the  state.  I,  for  one,  am 
opposed  to  a  change  which  would  make  a  district  system.  I 
do  not  believe  in  that  system.  I  do  believe  personally  in  let- 
ting the  representation  remain  where  it  is,  600,  and  increasing 
the   ratio   to  a   larger  number,  so  as  to   take   from  the   larger 


Tl^esdav,  June  11,  1912.  141 

towns  and  the  larger  wards  in  the  cities  some  of  their  mem- 
bers. Manchester  can  just  as  safely  and  just  as  well  and  iust 
as  truly  be  represented  by  40  men  on  this  floor  as  they  can  by 
61.  Peterborough  can  just  as  well  be  represented  by  one  as  it 
can  by  two,  and  I  believe  the  larger  towns  and  the  larger 
wards  should  deduct  from  their  number,  a  certain  number  to 
reduce  the  House  to  a  smaller  limit, — not  to  a  large  extent, 
but  to  a  small  extent. 

Now  there  is  one  reason  why  I  believe  this  reduction  should 
come  from  the  larger  towns  and  from  the  larger  wards, — the 
manufacturing  wards  and  the  manufacturing  towns.  It  is 
this:  The  proportion  of  population  in  the  larger  towns  ind 
in  the  manufacturing  cities  is  larger  proportionately  to  the 
number  of  voters  than  in  a  small  town.  If  based  upon  the 
number  of  voters  in  each  town,  you  will  find  a  greater  dif- 
ference in  the  number  from  the  cities  and  larger  towns  bhan 
what  it  is  today.  They  are  represented  largely  by  those  wh^ 
work  in  the  mills,  and  one  out  of  five  may  be  a  voter  in  thoso 
towns,  and  four  out  of  five  are  either  women  or  children,  or 
not  voters,  who  would  count  in  the  representation  by  popula- 
tion and  would  not  count  if  you  took  the  voting  population 
into  the  question.  I  believe,  if  we  meet  this  question  fairly, 
squarely  and  honestly,  we  may  agree  to  something  that  the 
people  will  ratify.  If  we  create  a  division,  as  we  are  doing  to- 
day, arraying  the  cities  against  the  towns,  the  voters  will  say 
"no"  so  emphatically  that  no  Convention  need  be  called  for 
twenty  years  with  anj^  hope  of  trying  to  revise  this  list. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Neuyport. — Mr.  Chairman,  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  intend  to  occupy  jour  time  but  for  a 
moment  this  afternoon.  Those  of  you  who  are  acquainted 
vsdth  me  know  what  my  position  is  with  respect  to  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration.  I  am  for  maintaining  the  representa- 
tion in  the  towns.  In  our  last  Convention,  I  took  that  posi- 
tion, and  thus  far  personally  I  favor,  more  than  any  other 
measure,  the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Pattee  from  Manches- 
ter, which  is  Resolution  No.  22.  I  favor  that  measure  because 
it  does  not  raise  the  population  now  sufficient  for  the  first 
representative.  Right  there,  it  seems  to  me,  is  an  important 
matter  for  us  to  consider.  It  does  not  make  any  difference,  or 
it  makes  less  difference  with  me,  if  I  have  a  case  in  court, 
whether  or  not  I  have  one  or  five  lawyers,  than  it  does  if  I 
do  not  have  any  at  all,  and  the  case  of  a  town  in  the  pro-rated 
class,  which  has  to  O'bey  law  enacted  where  it  is  not  repre- 
sented, is  like  unto  a  man  w^ho  has  to  take  the  judgment  of 
a  court  without  being  represented  at  all.    It  isn't  fair. 


142  Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

If  we  submit  to  the  people  a  resolution  preserving  the  popu- 
lation basis  of  600  for  the  first  representative,  we  shall  not 
receive  the  opposition  from  small  towns,  but  only  from  large 
towns  and  cities.  If  we  raise  to  800  inhabitants,  as  one  of 
these  measures  proposes,  we  shall  get  opposition  in  the  small 
towns  and  the  large  towns  and  cities  as  well. 

Ten  years  ago  we  nearly  got  through  a  proposition  keeping 
the  basis  of  representation  at  600  inhabitants.  Then  there  was 
a  sort  of  flurry  in  the  Convention,  an  attempt  to  compromise, 
and  they  had  a  long  session  in  Committee  and  it  came  back 
800.  A  lot  of  the  towns  were  against  us,  and  all  the  cities  were 
against  us,  and  of  course  it  didn't  go  through.  Now  let  us 
not  make  the  mistake  of  trying  to  raise  that  600  up  to  any 
other  figure.  If  we  cannot  do  any  better,  let  us  keep  that  600 
right  there.  So  far  as  the  size  of  the  House  is  concerned,  I 
believe  in  cutting  it  down.  It  is  unwieldy.  We  get  a  large 
number  of  good  men,  a  large  number  of  average  men,  but,  as 
long  as  we  have  a  House  as  large  as  this,  I  am  in  favor  of 
having  a  Senate  as  small  as  the  present  one.  The  present 
Senate  was  a  God-send  to  the  state  here  two  years  ago.  I 
heard  a  gentlemen  in  the  Convention  make  some  disparaging 
remarks  in  regard  to  the  Senate.  The  Senate  that  served  us 
two  years  ago  saved  this  state  thousands  and  thousands  and 
thousands  of  dollars,  and,  as  long  as  we  have  a  House  that 
will  listen  to  an  orator's  voice,  and  will  appropriate  thousands 
of  dollars  without  even  the  call  of  the  roll,  it  is  necessary  to 
have  some  branch  of  our  legislature  that  will  demand  a  reason 
why. 

Mr.  Biisiel  of  Laconia. — I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Newport  a  question.  He  stated  in  his  remarks  that  he  did 
not  think  it  was  right  that  an^-one  in  the  State  of  New  Hamp- 
shire should  go  unrepresented.  I  should  like  to  ask  him  if  the 
district  system  would  not  secure  perfectly  the  representation 
of  everyone  in  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — Mr.  Busiel,  I  would  say  that  I  think 
it  does.  I  think  it  is  theoretically  perfectly  sound  and  all 
right,  but  I  do  not  think  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  want  it. 

Mr.  Busiel  of  Laconia. — I  think  it  is  pure  presumption  on  the 
part  of  any  delegate  in  this  Convention  to  say  what  the  peo- 
ple of  New  Hampshire  want.  The  people  of  New  Hampshire 
never  have  had  an  opportunity  to  express  themselves  on  the 
question  of  district  representation,  and,  from  my  knowledge  of 
what  they  are  thinking  when  I  meet  them  all  over  this  state, 
I  have  faith  to  believe  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  if 
they  had  a  chance  to  express  themselves,  would  vote  for  the 
district  system. 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  143 

Mr.  Leighton  of  1^'ewfields. — Is  there  not  one  phase  of  this 
question  that  has  passed  unnoticed?  There  are  amendments 
proposed  here  to  divide  our  towns  and  cities  into  precincts,  or 
to  establish  precincts,  in  order  that  those  voters  in  some  of  our 
towns  need  not  travel  so  far.  Now,  if  we  establish  the  dis- 
trict system,  isn't  the  very  thing  to  be  established  which  these 
amendments  are  trying-  to  overcome?  Ought  not  that  to  be 
considered?  Then  again,  does  it  stand  to  reason  that,  because 
we  can  gather  the  thousands  in  a  limited  space,  that  those 
individuals  should  have  more  right  of  representation  than  those 
who  live  in  more  sparsely  settled  districts?  In  other  words, 
shall  those  individuals  who  live  a  dozen  or  fifteen  or  twenty- 
five  families  under  one  roof  have  representation,  whereas  we 
who  live  out  in  the  country  are  deprived  of  our  representa- 
tion? Now  it  seems  to  me,  Gentlemen,  you  ought  to  consider 
that  fact.  It  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  consider  the  fact  too, 
that  many  of  the  permanent  residents  are  those  living  in  the 
country.  Those  who  are  living  in  our  cities  are  transient  to 
a  very  great  extent.  They  are  not  actually  so  interested  in 
the  welfare  and  permanency  of  our  state  as  are  those  who 
are  out  in  the  country.  Should  not  then.  Gentlemen,  those 
people  be  considered?  It  seems  to  me  it  is  well  for  us  to 
pause  and  consider  those  things.  We  countrymen  certainly  do 
not  wish  to  deprive  the  city  of  its  rights.  Neither  does  the 
city,  I  believe,  want  to  deprive  us  countrymen  of  our  rights, 
but  let  us  weigh  this  matter  carefully  and  candidlj'.  It  seems 
to  me  this  Resolution  No_.  22  most  effectually  aii(i  fairly  meets 
the  present  needs,  and  this  which  has  been  brought  in  about 
what  other  people  think  about  us,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
is  all  nonsense.  I  think  New  Hampsnire  has  been  able  to  do 
its  own  business  in  a  business-like  waj-,  and  many  of  the 
sneers  that  have  been  cast  at  us  have  been  cast  simply  because 
of  some  selfish  or  jealous  motive.  Let  us  go  about  our  busi- 
ness as  men  of  intelligence  such  as  we  are. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — I  am  a  delegate  from  a  small  town, 
a  farming  town  and  a  pro-rated  town,  and  I  realize  the  senti- 
ment of  most  of  the  men  who  represent  small  towns,  but  I 
find  myself  obliged  to  support  the  measure  which  provides  for 
representative  districts,  because  sentiment  is  a  poor  thing  to 
decide  rights  by.  I  believe  the  only  principle  we  should  con- 
sider here,  in  changing  the  present  method,  is  the  principle 
of  justice,  pure  and  simple.  Every  method  that  has  been 
suggested  in  these  amendments,  save  the  one  to  create  dis- 
tricts according  to  population,  violates  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  our  government.     I  will  go  farther  than  that,  and  say 


]44     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

it  violates  the  fundamental  principle  of  our  government,  and 
that  principle  is  that  every  person,  irres^oective  of  how  much 
property  he  owns,  irrespective  of  his  color,  his  race  or  religion, 
is  entitled  to  equal  representation  in  the  government.  That 
is  the  fundamental  basis  of  our  republican  form  of  government, 
and  I  believe  that  our  method  of  electing  representatives 
should  be  based  upon  that  principle  of  justice  and  equal  repre- 
sentation to  every  citizen.  It  is  a  surprising  thing  to  hear 
men  argue  in  this  country,  in  New  Hampshire,  and  in  America, 
that  men,  because  they  have  propertj^  are  entitled  to  more 
representation  and  power  in  the  government.  There  is  no  man 
in  the  community  who  bears  so  large  a  burden  of  the  charges 
for  government  in  indirect  taxes  from  the  federal  government, 
and  indirect  taxes  from  the  state  government  as  the  man  who 
has  no  property  and  pays  only  a  poll  tax.  Every  man  who  oou- 
sumes  anything  that  is  taxed,  every  man  who  uses  anything 
that  is  taxed,  every  man  who  rents  a  house  that  is  taxed,  pays 
the  burden  of  that  taxation,  and  he  is  as  much  entitled  lo 
representation  in  our  form  of  government  as  a  ma  a  with  a 
million  dollars. 

Now  I  do  not  know  whether  the  people  of  my  town  would 
vote  for  any  scheme  that  divided  the  state  into  districts,  bat 
I  do  know  that  that  scheme  is  just  ana  fundamentally  right, 
and  I  hope  that  this  Convention  will  adopt  such  a  scheme. 
Further  than  that,  I  am  opposed  to  any  marked  reduction  in  the 
size  of  the  House.  I  believe  a  large  House  is  a  benefit  to  the 
people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  in  a  good  many  ways. 
The  larger  the  House  the  more  unwieldy  it  is,  and  that  is  the 
accusation  made  against  our  House  of  Representatives.  It  is 
unwieldy,  which  means  it  cannot  be  handled.  I  hope  we  shall 
keep  a  large  House,  from  350  to  400  members,  and  that  the 
representation  in  it  may  be  based  upon  justice,  giving  to  every 
man  an  equal  right  to  be  represented  here. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  that  the  com- 
mittee do  now  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again, 

The  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  whom  were  referred  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  appor- 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  145 

tionment  of  representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  Senate,  having  considered  the  same,  report  progress  and 
ask  leave  to  si't  again. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  leave  granted. 

Mr.  Hobhs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion:— 

Ee SOLUTION  No.  50. 

Relating  to  Taxes. 

Resolved,  That  Article  5,  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu-' 
tion  be  amended  by  striking  ouJt  the  words  "proportional  and 
reasonable^'  and  inserting  before  the  word  "estates^^  the  word 
such  and  add  after  the  word  "same"  the  words,  as  the  General 
Court  may  deem  wise  and  expedient. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  Ithe  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion:— 

RESOLiPxroN  No.  51. 

Relating  to  Taxation  of  Incomes. 

Resolved,  That  Article  6  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  word  "estates"  the 
word  "incomes." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  No.  52. 

Relating  to  Beltterments. 

Resolved,  That  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  be  amended 
by  adding  the  following  article: 


146     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Cities  and  towns  shall  have  the  power  to  assess*,  the  cost  of 
betiterments  and  improvements  of  highways  upon  the  owners 
of  property  benefited  thereby. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  No.  53. 

Relating  to  the  Council. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking  out 
Articles  59  to  65  inclusive  of  Part  2. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  No.  54. 

Relating  to  Election  of  Governor  by  Plurality  Vote. 

Amend  Part  2,  Article  41  of  the  Constitution  by  striking 
out  the  words  therein:  "and,  in  the  case  of  an  election  by  a 
majority  of  votes  through  the  state,  the  choice  shall  be  by 
them  declared  and  published;  and  the  qualifications  of  elec- 
tors of  the  governor  shall  be  same  as  those  for  senators;  and, 
if  no  person  shall  have  a  majority  of  voltes,  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  shall,  by  a  joint  ballot,  elect  one  of 
the  two  persons  having  the  highest  number  of  votes,  who 
shall  be  "declared  governor,^'  and  substitute  in  place  thereof 
the  following:  "the  candidate  who  is  eligible  and  who  receives 
the  highest  number  of  votes  through  i^e  state  shall  be  de- 
clared governor,  and  the  qualifications  of  electors  for  gov- 
ernor shall  be  the  same  as  those  for  senators,  and  if  no  person 
shall  have  a  plurality  of  votes  'the  Senate  and  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives shall  by  a  joint  ballot  elect  one  of  the  two  persons 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  147 

having  the  highest  number  of  votes,  who  shall  be  declared 
governor,"  so  that  said  article  as  amended  shall  read: 

"Akt.  41.  The  governor  shall  be  chosen  biennially,  in  the 
mon'th  of  November,  and  the  votes  for  governor  shall  be  re- 
ceived, sorted,  counted,  certified,  and  returned  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  votes  for  senators;  and  the  secretary  shall  lay 
the  same  before  the  Senate  and  House  of  Eepresentatives  on 
the  firs't  Wednesday  of  January,  to  be  by  them  examined;  and 
the  candidate  who  is  eligible  and  who  receives  the  highest 
number  of  votes  through  the  state  shall  be  declared  governor, 
and  the  qualifications  of  electors  for  governor  shall  be  the 
same  as  those  for  senators;  and  if  no  person  shall  have  a  plu- 
rality of  votes  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  shall 
by  a  joint  ballot  elect  one  of  the  two  persons  having  the 
highest  number  of  votes,  who  shall  be  declared  governor. 
And  no  person  shall  be  eligible  to  this  office  unless,  at  the 
time  of  his  election,  he  shall  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  *this 
state  for  seven  years  next  preceding,  and  unless  he  shall  be  of 
the  age  of  thirty  years. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolutiok^  No.  55. 

Relating  to  Election  of  Senators. 

Resolved,  That  Part  2,  Article  33  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  whole  thereof,  and  substitute 
the  following:  "The  person  in  each  district  receiving  the 
highest  number  of  votes  for  senator,  eligible  to  said  office 
shall  be  declared  elected.  All  vacancies  in  the  Senate  arising 
by  the  death,  removal  out  of  the  stait^  or  otherwise  shall  be 
filled  by  new  election  by  the  people  of  the  district  upon  the 
requisition  of  the  governor  as  soon  as  may  be  after  such 
vacancies  shall  happen." 


148     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

Mr.  Gaffney  of  Xashua  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Eesolution  Xio.  56. 

Eelatihg  to  Charters  of  Cities. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  adding  at 
the  end  of  Article  5  of  Part  Second  the  following  provision: 

The  powers  herein  enumerated  shall  apply  except  as  here- 
after in  this  form  of  government  provided  for. 

Akt.  6.  Municipal  corporations  shall  not  be  created  by 
special  laws,  but  ^ihe  legislature^  by  general  laws,  shall  provide 
for  the  incorporation  and  organization  of  cities  and  towns  and 
for  the  classification  of  such  cities  and  towns  in  proportion  to 
population,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  ar'ticle. 

Aet.  7.  Any  city  containing  now  or  hereafter,  a  popula- 
tion of  more  than  five  thousand  may  frame  a  charter  for  its 
own  government  consistent  with  and  subjedt  to  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  state  in  the  following  manner:  A  board 
of  freeholders  composed  of  fourteen  qualified  electors  of  said 
city  may  be  elected  at  large  by  the  qualifieid  electors  thereof 
a't  a  general  or  special  election,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  within 
six  months  after  such  election  to  prepare  and  propose  a  char- 
ter for  such  city.  Such  proposed  charter  shall  be  signed  in 
duplicate  by  the  members  of  such  board,  or  a  majority  of 
them,  and  filed,  one  copy  of  the  proposed  charter  with  the 
dhief  executive  of  such  city  and  'the  other  with  the  clerk  of 
the  superior  court  of  the  county  in  which  said  city  shall  be 
situated.  Such  proposed  charter  shall  then  be  published  in 
one  or  more  newspapers  published  and  of  general  circulation 
within  said  city  for  at  least  thirty  d'ays,  if  in  a  daily  paper,  or 
in  four  consecutive  issues  if  in  a  weekly  paper,  and  the  first 
publication  shall  be  made  within  thirty  days  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  proposed  charter.  "Within  thirty  days  and  not 
earlier  than  twenty  days  after  such  publication  said  proposed 


Tuesday,  June  11,  1912.  149 

charter  shall  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  qualified  electors 
of  said  city  at  a  general  or  special  election.  If  a  majority  of 
such  qualified  electors  voting  thereon  shall  ratify  such  pro- 
posed charter,  it  shall  thereupon  be  submitted  'to  the  governor 
for  his  approval,  and  the  governor  shall  approve  it  if  it  shall 
not  conflic't  with  this  Convention  or  with  the  laws  of  the 
state.  Upon  such  approval  said  charter  shall  become  the  or- 
ganic law  of  such  city  and  supersede  any  charter  then  exist- 
ing ('and  all  amendments  thereto)  and  all  ordinances  incon- 
sistent with  said  new  charter.  A  copy  of  such  charter,  certiv 
fied  by  the  chief  executive  officer,  and  authenticated  by  the 
seal  of  such  city,  together  with  a  statement  similarly  certified 
and  authenticated,  setting  forth  the  submission  of  such  char- 
ter to  the  electors  and  its  raltification  by  them,  shall,  after  the 
approval  of  such  charter  by  the  governor,  be  made  in  dupli- 
cate and  filed,  one  copy  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state 
and  the  other  in  ithe  archives  of  the  city  after  being  recorded 
in  the  office  of  said  clerk  of  the  superior  court.  Thereafter 
all  courts  shall  take  judicial  notice  of  said  charter. 

The  charter  so  ratified  may  be  amended  by  amendments 
proposed  and  submitted  by  the  legislative  authority  of  the 
city  to  the  qualified  electors  thereof  (or  by  petition  as  here- 
after provided)  at  a  general  or  special  election,  and  ratified  by 
a  majority  of  the  qualified  eledtors  voting  thereon,  and  ap- 
proved by  the  governor,  as  herein  provided  for  the  approval 
of  the  charter. 

Art.  8.  An  election  of  such  board  of  freeholders  may  be 
called  at  any  time  by  the  legislative  authority  of  any  such 
city.  Such  election  may  be  called  by  ithe  chief  executive  of- 
ficer of  any  such  city  within  twenty  days  after  there  shall 
have  been  filed  with  him  a  petition  demanding  such  election, 
signed  by  a  number  of  qualified  electors  residing  within  such 
city  equal  to  twenty-five  per  centum  of  the  total  number  of 
votes  cast  at  the  next  preceding  general  municipal  eledtion. 
Such  election  shall  be  held  not  later  than  thirty  days  after 
the  call  therefor.     At  such  election  a  vote  shall  be  taken 


150     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

upon  the  question  whether  further  proceedings  toward  adopt- 
ing a  charter  shall  be  had  in  pursuance  to  the  call,  and  unless 
a  majority  of  the  qualified  electors  vo'ting  thereon  shall  vote 
to  proceed,  no  further  proceedings  shall  be  had,  and  all  pro- 
ceedings up  to  the  time  of  said  election  shall  be  of  no  effect. 
Akt.  9.  No  municipal  corporation  shall  ever  grant,  ex- 
tend or  renew  a  franchise  without  the  approval  of  a  majority 
of  'the  qualified  electors  residing  within  its  corporate  limits 
who  shall  vote  thereon  at  a  general  or  special  election,  and 
the  legislative  body  of  any  such  corporation  shall  submit  any 
such  matter  for  approval  or  disapproval  to  such  electors  at 
any  general  municipal  election,  or  call  a  special  election  for 
such  purpose  at  any  time  upon  thii^ty  days'  notice.  No 
franchise  shall  be  granted,  extended  or  renewed  for  a  longer 
time  than  twenty-five  years. 

Art.  10.  Every  muncipal  corporation  within  this  state 
shall  have  the  right  to  engage  in  any  business  or  enterprise 
which  may  be  engaged  in  by  a  person,  firm  or  corporation  by 
virtue  of  a  franchise  from  said  municipal  corporation. 

AUT.  11.  No  grant,  extension,  or  renewal  of  any  franchise 
or  other  use  of  the  streets,  alleys,  or  other  public  grounds,  or 
ways,  of  any  muncipality  shall  divest  the  state  or  any  of  its 
subdivisions  of  its  or  their  control  and  regulation  of  such  use 
and  enjoyment;  nor  shall  the  power  to  regulate  charges  for 
public  services  be  surrendered;  and  no  exclusive  franchise 
shall  ever  be  granted. 

The  reading  of  the  resolution  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  the  further  reading 
was  dispensed  with. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Commit'tee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

Mr.  Tracy  of  Plainfield  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  151 

Resolution  No.  57. 

Relating  to  the  Council. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitii'tion  be  amended  by  striking 
out  of  Part  2,  Articles  46,  59,  60,  61,  62,  63,  64,  and  65;  and 
that  all  the  powers  and  duties  exercised  heretofore  by  the 
council  shall  be  conferred  upon  the  governor. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Tracy  of  Plainfield,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  4.44  o^clock. 

WEDNESDAY,  June  12,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  ad- 
journment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  George  E.  Leighton,  delegate  in 
the  Convention  from  Newfields. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  the  further  reading 
was  dispensed  wi'th. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr,  Kimball  of  Concord  Was  granted  leave  of  absence 
for  Wednesday  morning,  June  12,  on  account  of  important 
business. 

Mr.  Cochran  of  Windham  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for 
the  day  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Hall  of  Dover  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for  Wednes- 
day morning,  to  'attend  the  meeting  of  the  New  Hampshire 
Historical  Socie'ty. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin, — 


152     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolved,  That  the  roll  of  members  as  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Credentials,  be  conclusive  as  to  the  membership  of 
this  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  special  order  of  the  day,  the  same  being  Resolu- 
tion No.  4,  Relating  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  and 
Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Whittemore  of  Dover  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman. — 'Members  of  the  Convention,  we  are  met  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose  of  considering  Eeso- 
lution  No.  4,  the  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  Chairman,  as  the  introducer  of 
this  resolution,  I  crave  your  indulgence  if  I  should  speak  at 
some  length  on  this  question,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  a  ques- 
tion which  is  unfamiliar  to  a  great  many  of  the  people  in  the 
state  of  New  HJampshire,  and  I  apprehend  it  is  perhaps  un- 
familiar to  many  of  the  members  of  this  Committee.  I  was 
chosen  as  a  delegate  to  this  Convention  from  a  town  which  is 
normally  two  to  one  Republican,  I  being  a  Democrat,  on  inde- 
pendent nomination  papers  on  a  straight  initiative  and  refer- 
endum platform.  I  told  the  people  of  that  town  that  if  they 
believed  with  me  that  the  initiative  and  referendum  was  the 
most  important  question  before  the  people  of  New  Hampshire 
at  this  time,  I  should  be  pleased  to  be  chosen  a  member  of 
this  Convention,  that  I  might  personally  advocate  those  prin- 
ciples upon  the  floor  of  the  Convention.  As  a  result,  I  re- 
ceived the  highest  number  of  votes  of  any  candidate  for  dele- 
gate from  my  town,  which  is  entitled  to  two,  and  for  which 
there  were  three  candidates.  In  addition  to  that,  upon  the 
same  day  a  resolution  was  offered  in  the  Town  Meeting  that 
the  delegates  from  our  town  should  support  an  amendment 
embodying  the  principles  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  and 
that  resolution  was  endorsed  by  a  vote  of  72  to  17,  so  you  see 
I  have  a  very  clear  warrant  for  supporting,  upon  the  floor  of 
this  Convention  and  before  this  Committee,  the  initiative  and 
referendum. 

The  title  of  this  bill  as  printed  is  somewhat  misleading  due 
to    no    fault   of    anyone    except    a    little    misunderstanding    of 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  153 

what  the  measure  contain.  The  title  of  the  amendment  as 
presented  was  "providing  for  the  referendum  on  measures 
passed  and  rejected  by  the  General  Court,  the  legislative 
referendum  and  for  the  submission  of  constitutional  amend- 
ments by  the  General  Court,  and  by  the  initiative."  You  will 
note  by  that,  that  the  initiative  as  such,  on  legislative  mea- 
sures, has  been  cut  out,  and  in  its  place  we  have  inserted  a 
referendum  on  measures  which  may  be  rejected  by  the  legis- 
lature, thereby  allowing  the  General  Court  to  pass  upon  every 
measure  before  it  is  submitted  to  the  people  under  the  refer- 
endum. In  principle,  the  referendum  on  rejected  measures  is 
the  same  as  the  initiative,  with  the  additional  change,  as  I 
stated  before,  that  the  legislature  may  have  an  opportunity 
to  pass  upon  every  measure  before  it  goes  to  the  people,  where, 
under  the  initiative,  measures  go  directly  to  the  people  with- 
out legislative  discussion  of  the  matter.  This  has  been  de- 
clared by  a  great  many  who  have  examined  the  amendment  to 
be  a  much  preferable  form  to  that  of  the  straight  initiative, 
as  in  force  in  a  good  many  states. 

Now  let  us  consider  what  the  initiative  and  referendum  or 
the  referendum  on  rejected  measures  and  the  referendum  on 
measures  passed  by  the  legislature  means  to  us.  Legislation 
from  its  very  nature  deals  with  law.  The  laws  under  which 
we  live  are  very  vital  to  every  citizen,  every  inhabitant  of  our 
state.  In  order  that  those  laws  may  be  absolutely  fair,  it  is 
essential  that  laws  which  are  enacted,  which  affect  every  one 
of  us,  should  be  enacted  with  absolute  justice  to  all, — as  the 
great  Thomas  Jefferson  put  it,  "equal  rights  to  all  and  special 
privileges  to  none." 

,  The  initiative  and  referendum  are  based  upon  a  clause  in 
our  own  Bill  of  Eights,  Article  8,  Part  One  of  the  Constitution, 
which  states:  "All  power  residing  originally  in,  and  being  de- 
rived from,  the  people,  all  the  magistrates  and  officers  of  gov- 
ernment are  their  substitutes  and  agents,  and  at  all  times  ac- 
countable to  them."  That  places  the  control  of  the  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live  directly  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
at  all  times.  Now  if  the  laws  touch  every  one  of  us,  it  is 
necessary,  to  enable  those  laws  to  be  enacted  with  justice  to 
all,  that  the  people  should,  as  stated  in  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
have  control  over  all  the  officers  and  magistrates  of  govern- 
ment at  all  times.  Under  our  present  system  that  is  not 
exactly  true.  We  are  supposed  to  have  control  of  our  magis- 
trates and  officers  at  all  times,  but  as  a  matter  of  actual  fact 
we  only  have  control  of  them  once  in  two  years  when  they 
come    up    for    re-election.     In   the    meantime    they    are    subject 


154-     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

only  to  our  advice,  and  we  have  no  way  of  making  them  ac- 
cept the  advice  of  the  people. 

This  has  brought  about  a  situation,  where,  instead  of  repre- 
sentative government,  we  have,  in  a  great  many  cases,  mis- 
representative  government.  Every  advocate  of  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  so  far  as  I  know,  believes  that  a  representa- 
tive form  of  government  is  the  only  form  of  government 
which  can  be  successfully  applied  to  so  large  a  community  as 
a  state.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  delegates,  representa- 
tives, senators,  call  them  what  you  will,  shall  be  sent  from 
different  communities  in  the  state  to  some  central  point, 
where  they  may  consider  and  discuss  matters  with  other  dele- 
gates from  other  points  in  the  state,  and  thereby  unite  upon 
some  general  laws  which  will  be  satisfactory  to  every  one.  No 
advocate  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  so  far  as  I  know, 
has  ever  advocated  doing  away  with  representative  govern- 
ment. We  only  ask  that  representative  government  shall  be 
representative,  of  whom?  Of  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  for  all  the  people  of  the  state  in  which  we 
live,  for  whom  government  is  instituted  according  to  the  first 
article  of  our  Bill  of  Rights. 

In  many  cases,  government  has  become  misrepresentative. 
This  is  because  the  people,  for  whom  the  government  was 
instituted,  have  not  the  effective  control  of  results  of  legis- 
lation, or  to  put  it  in  the  words  of  the  Constitution,  have  not 
control  of  their  officers  and  magistrates  at  all  times.  The 
initiative  and  referendum  is  calculated  to  bring  the  legislative 
officers  of  the  government  under  the  control  of  the  people  at 
all  times,  and  thereby  make  certain  that  the  government  may 
at  all  times  be  accountable  to  the  people. 

I  need  not  relate  to  you  cases  in  which  the  legislature  of  our 
state  has  failed  to  interpret  correctly  the  will  of  the  people. 
Some  such  cases  have  occurred;  most  of  you  can  remember 
what  they  are.  Those  examples  of  misrepresentative  govern- 
ment are  due,  not  to  the  fault  or  the  dishonesty  or  the  lack 
of  good  citizenship  of  those  who  compose  our  legislative 
bodies;  they  are  due  to  the  fact  that  legislators  are  not  at  all 
times  accountable  to  the  people,  and  specifically  due  to  two 
reasons, — first,  because  the  people  have  no  authoritative  way 
to  know  what  their  legislators  are  doing,  and,  second,  because 
the  legislators  have  no  way  to  learn  authoritatively  what  the 
people  want.  Of  course  you  say,  "Why,  yes,  we  elect  Repub- 
licans and  Democrats  upon  party  platforms."  You  know  what 
one  of  the  distinguished  public  servants  of  our  state  said  aboiit 
party  platforms,  that  while  they  are  made   to   get  in   on   they 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  155 

are  not  to  stand  on.  That  is  about  as  true  as  anything  that 
was  ever  said.  There  are  ten  or  twelve  demands  in  each  party 
platform;  six  or  seven  or  eight  hundred  measures  before  the 
legislature.  Do  you  consider  that  the  ten  or  twelve  demands 
laid  down  in  each  party  platform,  making  24  suggestions  from 
the  people,  are  a  very  broad  guide  for  the  legislators  to  follow? 
I  think  not. 

So  then,  what  is  the  legislator  to  do  when  he  comes  down 
here  to  Concord  to  consider  what  is  for  the  interest  of  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire?  He  is  left  to  his  own  judgment, 
as  far  as  the  demands  of  the  people  are  concerned,  beyond 
those  principles  which  are  laid  down  in  the  party  platform. 
Then  what  has  become  of  our  representative  government? 
Nothing  ar  all.  We  have  an  uncontrolled,  delegated  govern- 
ment. 

Now,  as  I  say,  the  people  have  no  way  authoritatively  to 
learn  what  the  legislature  is  doing.  Of  course  they  can  come 
down  here  and  see  what  you  are  doing,  but  I  have  been  in  the 
legislature  and  I  have  watched  a  good  deal,  but  1  am  sure, 
watching  as  close  as  I  could,  I  could  not  find  out  what  the 
legislature  was  doing  all  the  time,  so  how  much  more  difficult 
is  it  for  the  citizen  who  remains  at  home  to  find  out  what 
the  legislature  is  doing?  It  is  absolutely  necessary,  in  order 
to  have  our  government  a  truly  representative  government, 
that  the  legislators  should  know  what  the  people  want  in  the 
first  instance,  and  the  people  should  know  what  the  legislature 
gives  them  afterwards.  The  witiative  and  the  referendum  fill 
this  gap  in  our  system  of  government. 

Every  legislator  who  is  honest,  and  they  all  are,  every  legis- 
lator who  is  honest  welcomes  suggestions  from  his  constitu- 
ents. He  does  not  necessarily  follow  those  suggestions;  con- 
ditions may  be  such  that  he  believes  it  is  not  for  the  best  in- 
terest of  the  state  that  those  suggestions  should  be  followed, 
but  in  the  first  instance  he  welcomes  suggestions  from  his 
constituents.  The  initiative  and  referendum  offer  an  oppor- 
tunity whereby  every  citizen  of  the  state  could  advise  every 
member  of  the  legislature  on  every  matter  that  comes  before 
the  legislature.  Now  that  sounds  like  a  pretty  big  program, 
but  it  is  not  so  large  as  it  seems,  because  probably  in  498 
cases  out  of  500,  may  be  a  larger  per  cent,  may  be  a  smaller 
per  cent,  but  in  a  very  large  number  of  cases,  the  action  of  the 
legislature  will  be  absolutely  satisfactory  to  the  people  of  the 
state,  and  therefore  the  advice  in  that  case  will  consist  simply 
in  sitting  tight  and  thus  saying  to  the  legislature,  "we  advise 
you  that  you  have  done  just  right,"  but  in  the  two  cases  out 


156     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  500,  more  or  less,  in  which  the  legislature  misinterprets  the 
will  of  the  people,  what  redress  have  the  people  under  our 
present  system?  Nothing-  at  all.  They  are  bound  to  stand 
by  what  the  legislature  gives  them  under  our  present  system, 
with  nothing  standing  between  them. 

The  initiative,  or  as  is  proposed  in  this  Convention,  the 
referendum,  on  measures  rejected  by  the  legislature,  provides 
the  people  of  the  state  with  an  opportunity  to  correct  mistakes 
of  omission  upon  the  part  of  the  legislature.  That  is,-  if  the 
legislature  says,  we  do  not  believe,  in  our  judgment,  that  such 
a  measure  should  take  effect,  the  people,  under  the  referen- 
dum for  measures  rejected  by  the  legislature,  may  say,  "you 
did  not  interpret  the  ideas  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire  correctly,  and  we  reserve  the  right  to  do  ourselves 
what  the  legislature  neglects  to  do,  if  we  want  it  done." 

The  referendum  on  measures  passed  by  the  legislature  cor- 
rects mistakes  of  commission  in  situations  in  which  the  legis- 
lature may  have  passed  laws  which  are  not  demanded  for  the 
welfare  of  our  state.  So  we  have  corrected  practically  the 
only  defect  which  occurs  in  making  our  government  truly 
representative  of  the  people.  The  longer  the  initiative  and 
referendum  is  enforced  the  less  it  will  be  needed,  for  the 
reason  that  the  legislature  will  always  become  more  and  more 
truly  representative  of  the  people,  and  that,  I  take  it,  is  all 
we  can  ask  in  a  system  of  popular  government. 

This  is  simply  the  principle  which  every  man  of  business 
in  his  own  affairs  uses,  applied  to  the  business  of  govern- 
ment. To  apply  it  to  personal  affairs,  let  me  take  an  instance. 
When  I  go  to  the  dentist  with  an  aching  tooth,  I  reserve  the 
right  to  say  to  the  dentist,  "You  shall  or  you  shall  not  pull 
that  tooth."  You  would  think  I  was  ver^-  foolish  if  1  went  to 
the  dentist  and  said,  "You  look  in  my  mouth  and  see  what  you 
think  about  it,  and  you  may  pull  any  tooth  you  wish."  Y''ou 
would  think  me  a  fit  subject  for  the  insane  asylum.  When  I 
go  to  the  dentist,  I  take  his  advice  as  an  expert  on  teeth,  but 
it  is  my  tooth  which  is  aching  apd  is  to  be  operated  upon,  and 
I  reserve  the  right  to  say  whether  he  shall  extract  the  tooth 
or  not.  This  is  simply  applied  to  the  government.  The  gov- 
ernment of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  is  instituted  for  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire.  The  people  delegate  or  should  dele- 
gate a  part  of  their  government  to  a  legislature,  but  the  legis- 
lature should  not  have  the  right  to  pull  any  tooth  they  wish 
in  the  body  politic;  they  should  be  compelled  to  pull  only  such 
teeth  as  the  body  politic  seems  to  think,  or  does  think,  need 
extracting.    And  to  apply  it  further  to  the  affairs  of  business, 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  157 

suppose  one  of  us  decides  to  erect  a  building.  We  go  to  the 
expert  architect.  We  tell  him  what  we  wish  to  have  done, 
and  he  draws  the  plans  for  us,  but  we  always  reserve  the  right 
to  accept  or  reject  those  plans.  The  people  of  New  Hampshire 
should  have  a  reserved  opportunity  to  accept  or  reject  the 
plans  of  government  which  are  submitted  to  them  by  the  legis- 
lature. 

A  membership  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  is  one  of 
the  highest  honors  that  can  come  to  a  citizen  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. Why?  Because  a  delegate  to  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention realizes  that  every  act  of  his  will  be  submitted  to  the 
scrutiny  of  the  people,  and  every  act  of  the  Convention  will 
have  to  be  passed  upon  by  the  people.  It  would  add  to  the 
dignity  of  the  legislature  if  they  realized  that  every  act  of 
theirs  would  have  to  be  referred  and  passed  upon  by  the  will ' 
of  the  people;  not  actively  passed  upon  necessarily,  but,  as  I 
suggested  before,  passed  upon  by  a  passive  suggestion  that 
the  act  of  the  legislature  was  correct. 

Now  this  is  no  new  thing.  The  initiative  and  referendum, 
as  I  showed,  is  founded  upon  an  article  in  our  own  Constitu- 
tion. In  this  Manual  prepared  by  Professor  Colby,  which  has 
been  furnished  to  every  one  of  us,  I  find  a  letter  written  to 
Meshech  Weare,  December  11,  1775,  by  Gen.  John  Sullivan  of 
the  Army,  which  puts  forward  a  plan  of  government.  I  should 
advise  every  member  of  this  Convention  who  believes  in  the 
future  of  New  Hampshire  to  turn  to  that  page  of  this  Manual 
and  read  that  letter.     It  is  page  65  of  Colby's  Manual. 

He  says:  "And,  as  my  ideas  of  government  may  in  some 
measure  differ  from  many  others,  I  shall  beg  leave  to  premise 
some  few  things:  and  in  the  first  place  must  observe  that 
all  governments  are,  or  ought  to  be,  instituted  for  the  good 
of  the  people;  and  that  form  of  government  is  most  per- 
fect when  that  design  is  most  nearly  and  effectually  an- 
swered.    .     .     . 

"Third.  That  no  danger  can  arise  to  a  state  from  giving  the 
people  a  free  and  full  voice  in  their  own  government.  And 
that  what  is  called  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown,  or  checks  upon 
the  licentiousness  of  the  people,  are  only  the  children  of  de- 
signing or  ambitious  men,  no  such  thing  being  necessary;  for, 
although  many  states  have  been  overturned  by  the  rage  and 
violence  of  the  people,  yet  that  spirit  of  rage  and  violence  has 
ever  been  awakened  in  the  first  place  by  the  misconduct  of 
their  rulers.  And,  though  often  carried  to  the  most  dangerous 
heights,  so  far  from  being  owing  to  too  much  power  being 
lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  that  it  is  clearly  owing  to 


158     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

their  having-  too  small  and  their  rulers  too  extensive,  a  power. 
.  .  .  I  am  well  convinced  that  people  are  too  fond  of  their 
own  ease  and  quiet  to  rise  up  in  rebellion  against  govern- 
ment, unless  when  the  tyranny  becomes  intolerable.  And  their 
fondness  for  government  must  clearly  appear  from  their  so 
often  submitting  to  one  tyrant  after  they  had  extirpated  an- 
other, rather  than  live  in  a  state  of  anarchy  and  con- 
fusion.    .     .     . 

"And  here  I  must  beg  leave  to  observe  that  however  high 
other  people's  notions  of  government  may  run,  and  however 
much  they  may  be  disposed  to  worship  a  creature  of  their 
own  creation,  I  can  by  no  means  consent  to  lodging  too  much 
power  in  the  hands  of  one  person,  or  suffering  an  interest 
in  government  to  exist  separate  from  that  of  the  people,  or 
•  any  man  to  hold  an  office  for  the  execution  of  which  he  is  not 
in  some  way  or  other  answ^erable  to  that  people  to  whom  he 
owes  his  political  existence." 

That  is  the  foundation  for  initiative  and  referendum,  writ- 
ten 142  years  ago,  and  I  believe  the  w'ords  are  just  as  true 
today  as  the  day  they  were  written,  and  the  people  who  framed 
our  Constitution  evidently  believed  that  w^as  so,  because  as  a 
matter  of  fact  they  embodied  quite  a  number  of  the  proposals 
submitted  by  General  Sullivan  in  our  own  Constitution,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  some  of  the  proposals  of 
Gen.  John  Sullivan  appeared  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. 

Now,  as  I  say,  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  no  new  thing 
in  New  iiampshire,  in  principle;  in  practice,  of  course,  we 
have  never  tried  it  directly. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  were  first  used  in  their  mod- 
em form  in  certain  cantons  of  Switzerland  about  fifty  years 
ago,  and  since  that  time  they  have  so  successfully  operated 
there  that  twenty-one  out  of  twenty-two  have  the  initiative 
and  referendum  in  some  form.  Twelve  states  in  the  Union 
have  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  effect,  most  of  them  in 
operation;  two,  however,  by  the  failure  of  their  legislatures 
to  give  effect  to  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  have  it  in 
the  Constitution,  but  not  in  operation.  Seven  other  states  will 
vote  upon  the  adoption  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  within 
a  year,  and  I  predict,  if  the  delegates  to  this  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1912  in  New  Hampshire  do  not  see  fit  to  submit 
to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  amendments  providing  for 
the  initiative  and  referendum,  that,  when  we  do  get  around  to 
submit  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  the  initiative  and 
referendum,   we   will   be  bringing  up   the   rear   of  the   train   of 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  159 

the  states.  I  need  not  dwell  on  the  successful  operation  of 
the  initiative  and  referendum  in  the  states  where  it  has  been 
in  effect.  I  will  only  state  that  no  one  has  been  able  to  point 
out  one  instance  w^here  the  initiative  and  referendum  as  ap- 
plied has  been  a  failure.  Every  state  in  the  Union  that  has 
ever  had  a  chance  to  adopt  the  initiative  and  referendum  has 
adopted  it,  and  in  no  state  in  which  it  has  been  in  effect  has 
a  successful  attempt  to  get  rid  of  it  been  made.  The  proof 
of  the  pudding-  is  in  the  eating.  Every  state  seems  to  be  pretty 
well  satisfied  with  the  initiative  and  referendum  where  it  is 
in  effect. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  people  of  the  state  do  not  take 
enough  interest  in  the  affairs  of  government  to  bring  about 
the  successful  working  of  the  initiative  and  referendum.  The 
people  in  the  state  of  Oregon  have  had  a  chance  to  vote  upon 
sixty-four  laws,  and  you  can  imagine  how  much  interest  the 
people  of  Oregon  take  in  the  laws  under  which  they  live 
when  I  tell  you  that  three  out  of  every  four  people  who  went 
to  the  polls  in  four  successive  elections  have  voted  on  every 
one  of  those  sixty-four  laws.  If  it  is  true  that  laws  are  in- 
teresting to  every  one  because  they  have  to  live  under  them, 
then  it  is  true  that  the  more  citizens  understand  about  the 
laws  under  which  they  live,  the  better  citizens  they  will  be, 
and  I  take  it  that  the  chief  ambitions  of  our  government  are 
to  have  good  citizens,  and  to  have  laws  obeyed.  We  find  that 
four  out  of  every  five  in  the  state  of  Oregon  who  went  to  the 
polls  who  voted  for  the  four  principal  state  officers  have  voted 
on  these  laws, — a  tremendously  important  example  of  the  in- 
terest the  citizens  will  take  in  the  affairs  of  government  once 
given  the  chance.  Progressive  laws  which  have  been  adopted 
by  states  all  over  the  Union  have  first  been  adopted  by  the 
people  of  Oregon  under  the  initiative  and  referendum.  Meas- 
ures which  have  been  adopted  by  the  people  of  Oregon  are  an 
issue  in  practically  every  state  in  the  Union  where  they  are 
not  in  operation. 

Now  we  come  to  some  of  the  objections  which  will  be  raised 
to  the  initiative  and  referendum.  I  have  heard  most  of  them. 
A  great  many  of  them  take  the  form  of  denunciation.  They 
say  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  a  political  heresy.  I 
imagine  that  George  III  thought  of  George  Washington  and 
the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  that  way. 
I  believe  we  should  not  be  frightened  by  being  called 
heretics;  we  should  examine  these  matters  for  ourselves,  and 
see  whether  these  experiments  are  working  out  successfully 
in  other  places,  whether  the  conditions  are  the  same  as  in  our 


160     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

own  state,  and  whether  we  think  they  would  work  out  well 
in  our  own  state.  One  of  the  greatest  arguments  against  the 
initiative  and  referendum  is  that  it  brings  about  mob  rule. 
It  is  an  awful  thing-  to  be  ruled  by  the  mob, — that  is  true. 
If  anyone  can  point  out  to  me  the  slightest  resemblance  be- 
tween the  initiative  and  referendum  and  mob  rule,  I  would 
thank  them  to  do  so. 

In  Resolution  4,  providing  for  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
no  measure  goes  to  the  people  unless  the  legislature  has  con- 
sidered it,  and  then  it  cannot  go  to  the  people  until  the  next 
election.  See  what  that  means.  Suppose  a  measure  is  intro- 
duced in  the  legislature  of  1913  which  goes  to  a  referendum, 
either  because  it  is  rejected  or  because  it  is  accepted,  and  the 
people  think  it  is  unsatisfactory.  It  lies  on  the  table,  so  to 
speak,  from  the  close  of  the  Legislature  of  1913  until  the  gen- 
eral election  of  1914,  when  it  is  decided  by  the  people,  not 
in  a  mob  but  in  the  quiet  and  secrecy  of  the  Australian  bal- 
lot booth.  Does  that  have  any  resemblance  to  the  action  of 
a  mob?  What  is  the  action  of  the  mob?  It  is  hasty  and  ill- 
considered,  here  today  and  there  tonight  and  gone  tomorrow 
morning.  Do  the  citizens  of  New  Hampshire  at  their  polling 
place  bear  the  slightest  resemblance  to  a  mob?  And  the  re- 
sult of  their  action  at  these  polls  wdll  not  bear  the  slightest 
resemblance  to  mob  rule.  We  hear  of  taking  away  from  the 
legislature  the  responsibility  of  final  decision  of  questions; 
that  it  would  be  removing  from  them  the  incentive  to  be  re- 
sponsible by  allowing  them  to  pass  along  to  the  people  the 
decision  of  results.  Now,  there  may  be  something  to  that. 
But  I  believe,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  an  argument  which 
in  its  proof  shows  that  the  responsibility  of  the  legislature 
would  be  increased  rather  than  diminished  under  any  working 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum.  That  is,  we  would  get  bet- 
ter legislators  under  the  initiative  and  referendum  than  at  the 
present  time.  Suppose  in  my  town,  I  being  a  Democrat,  a 
Democrat  who  is  a  candidate  for  representative  agrees  with 
the  principles  with  which  I  agree,  but  is  not  a  responsible 
citizen,  as  I  look  at  it.  On  the  other  hand,  a  Republican  in 
my  town  is  put  up  as  a  candidate  for  representative,  for  whom 
I  have  the  greatest  respect,  who  I  believe  should  be  a  very 
capable  legislator,  yet  for  whom  I  hesitate  to  vote  for  the 
reason  that  he  advocates  principles  in  which  I  do  not  believe. 
What  shall  I  do?  Shall  I  sacrifice  my  own  belief  and  vote 
for  the  better  man,  or  shall  I  vote  for  ray  own  principles  and 
send  what  has  been  known  as  the  "yellow  dog"  to  the  legis- 
lature?   The  initiative   and   referendum   would   allow   us  at   all 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  161 

times  to  choose  the  best  man  for  the  legislature,  knowing  that 
if  the  results  which  we  asked  for  did  not  come  from  the  legis- 
lature, we  and  others  who  agreed  with  us  could  get  these 
results  from  the  people  themselves,  regardless  of  the  legis- 
lature. So  I  think  that  the  personnel,  the  membership  of 
our  legislative  bodies,  would  all  the  time  be  improving  if  we 
had  the  initiative  and  referendum  to  allow  the  people  to  vote  " 
on  matters  as  they  see  fit,  regardless,  in  some  instances,  of 
who  represents  them  in  the  legislature. 

Now  just  an  instance  of  how  the  referendum  might  have 
worked  in  New  Hampshire.  You  remember  the  legislature  of 
1909  passed  a  law  which  was  known  as  the  "Three  Trunk 
Line"  bill,  providing  for  the  expenditure  of  a  million  dol- 
lars for  state  highways  throughout  the  state,  and  the  ex- 
penditure of  another  million  by  the  towns  and  cities  through 
which  these  highways  run.  The  people  of  New  Hampshire  had 
not  considered  previous  to  that  time  that  particular  method 
of  building  highways.  We  all  agree  that  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  should  have  the  best  highways  that  it  is  possible 
to  pay  for  and  maintain.  No  one  knew  when  that  bill  was 
passed  in  the  legislature  what  the  effect  would  be,  whether 
a  million  or  two  million  dollars  would  complete  those  high- 
ways, or  whether  there  was  money  enough  in  the  whole 
state  of  New  Hampshire  to  keep  them  in  repair  after  they 
were  completed.  That  question  was  not  an  issue  in  the  cam- 
paign in  which  that  legislature  was  elected,  and  a  change  of 
twelve  votes  at  one  stage  in  the  House  would  have  defeated 
that  measure.  Now,  I  say  that  there  was  no  demand  for  that 
particular  measure  passing  the  legislature,  yet  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire  have  it  settled  upon  them.  They  have  no 
redress.  They  must  pay  the  bill.  We  are  tied  up  under  that 
particular  method  of  road-building,  whether  it  is  satisfactory 
or  not.  Now  let  us  see  what  would  have  been  the  case  if  the 
referendum  had  been  in  force.  I  apprehend  that  a  sufficient 
number  of  signers  to  a  petition,  asking  that  that  law  should 
not  take  effect,  could  have  been  found.  The  petition  would 
have  been  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state,  pleading  that 
that  law  should  not  go  into  effect  until  the  people  had  talked 
over  the  question  whether  they  wanted  the  expenditure  of 
so  much  money  made  or  not.  The  question  would  have  been 
discussed  up  and  down  the  state,  in  the  Grange,  in  the  boards 
of  trade,  in  the  labor  unions,  and  in  the  homes  all  over  New 
Hampshire  for  a  year  and  a  half.  Then  in  1910,  after  th'» 
people  had  had  a  chance  for  a  3'ear  and  a  half's  discussion 
over  that   matter,  the}'   could  have   gone  and  voted   yes   or  no 


162    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

on  that  measure.  And  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  inan  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  who  would  not  then  have  considered 
himself  competent,  and  3'6u  would  have  considered  him  so, 
to  vote  whether  the  state's  money  should  be  used  in  that 
specific  way  or  not.  That  is  the  way  the  referendum  works 
in  actual  practice.  It  doesn't  mean  that  the  people  will  hav^ 
to  vote  on  every  fish  and  game  bill  for  the  protection  of  horn- 
pout,  or  a  bill  to  screen  Webster  Lake.  It  simply  means  thai 
important  questions,  all  political  questions  in  which  the  people 
should  be  intensely  interested,  should  be  at  some  time,  if 
the  legislature's  action  is  not  satisfactory,  referred  back  to 
the  people  for  their  own  decision. 

Another  thing,  you  know  that  the  story  of  railroad  legis- 
lation in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is  a  rather  black  page 
of  our  history.  We  should  dislike  to  see  a  repetition  of  some 
of  the  former  railroad  fights  in  the  legislature.  We  have  com- 
ing in  New  Hampshire  what  bids  fair  to  be  another  railroad 
fight.  It  will  not  necessarily  come  to  the  legislature,  but 
there  is  a  very  great  possibility  that  it  may  come  there.  Now 
is  it  fair  to  the  gentlemen  whom  we  send  here  to  Concord  to 
represent  us  in  the  legislature  to  subject  them  to  the  tempta- 
tions to  which  they  will  be  subjected  if  railroad  legislation 
comes  into  the  legislature?  You  know  what  the  pressure  is, 
many  of  you,  that  is  brought  to  bear  upon  the  senators  and 
representatives  to  be  false  to  their  constituents.  .  It  is  not 
fair  to  the  man  who  is  sent  to  the  legislature  that  we,  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire,  should  allow  him  to  be  subjected 
to  that  very  great  temptation,  greater  than  any  man  should 
ever  be  required  to  withstand.  If  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, as  proposed  by  Eesolution  No.  4,  is  inserted  into  the 
New  Hampshire  Constitution  it  will  take  away  from  the 
legislature,  providing  this  question  comes  to  it,  the  final 
decision  of  that  question,  and  put  the  respcnsibility  back  on 
the  people  of  the  state,  where  it  rightfully  belongs.  The  de- 
cision of  a  question  like  giving  a  charter  to  the  Grand  Trunk 
Railroad,  for  instance,  is  not  a  question  which  vitally  inter- 
ests the  comparatively  few  who  may  be  sent  to  the  legis- 
lature, but  it  interests  the  people  of  the  whole  state  of  New 
Hampshire.  The  question  that  will  be  in  issue  in  the  grant- 
ing of  that  charter  will  be:  "Is  it  for  the  welfare  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire?"  Not,  "Is  it  for  the  welfare  of  the  Bos- 
ton &  Maine?"  or,  "Is  it  for  the  welfare  of  the  Grand  Trunk 
Railway?"  but  "Is  it  for  the  welfare  of  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire?"  And  they  should  be  the  ones  to  finally  decide 
that.     They  will  not  have  an  opportunity  to  do  that  unless  we 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  163 

submit  this  amendment,  or  some  similar  amendment,  and  the 
people  adopt  it.  I  believe  for  that  reason  alone  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  would  be  repaid  in  the  increase  in  the  man- 
hood of  the  men  who  are  members  of  the  legislature  when 
that  question  is  up,  if  we  have  an  opportunity  to  relieve  them 
of  the  final  decision  of  that  question. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  specific  measure  before  us, — "No 
act  or  resolve  passed  by  the  General  Court  shall  take  effect 
earlier  than  ninety  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  the 
General  Court  passing  the  same."  That  gives  every  one  an 
opportunity  to  investigate  the  matters  which  are  before  the 
legislature,  and  passed  by  the  legislature,  and  stir  around  and 
get  signatures  of  4,000  citizens,  if  any  measure  bids  fair  to 
be  unsatisfactory  to  that  number.  "Except  appropriation 
bills  authorizing  expenditures  from  the  treasury  of  the  state 
for  purposes  authorized  by  existing  law," — which  relates  to 
routine  appropriations, — "and  excepting  also  acts  or  resolves 
declared  to  be  emergency  measures."  Now  the  emergency 
measures  have  to  have  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  branch  on  a 
roll-call;  then  it  can  go  into  effect,  but  will  be  subject  to  the 
referendum  and  will  remain  in  effect  only  until  the  people 
get  a  chance  to  vote;  if  the  people  say  then  they  are  in  favor 
of  it,  it  stays  in  effect;  if  they  are  not,  it  will  be  repealed. 
That  is  what  is  meant  by  the  "emergency."  "If  within  ninety 
days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  any  General  Court  a 
referendum  petition  signed  by  not  less  than  four  thousand 
qualified  voters  of  the  state  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary 
of  state  against  any  act  or  resolve  passed  by  that  General 
Court,  except  as  above  stated,  such  act  or  resolve  shall  not 
become  law,  but  shall  be  submitted  to  the  voters  of  the  state 
at  the  ensuing  state  election."  Under  the  legislative  refer- 
endum the  legislature  says,  "We  don't  know  exactly  what 
the  people  want,  so  we  will  let  the  people  say  for  themselves." 
"In  case  an  act  or  resolve  proposed  in  the  General  Court  fails 
to  be  passed  by  that  General  Court,  then  on  petition  of  the 
number  of  voters  last  above  stated,  and  filed  with  the  sec- 
retary of  state  not  less  than  four  months  previous  to  the 
next  ensuing  state  election,  said  act  or  resolve  in  its  original 
form  or  in  such  amended  form  proposed  in  the  General  Court 
as  may  be  petitioned  for  by  such  petitioners  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  voters  at  the  next  ensuing  election."  I  will  explain 
that.  In  any  event,  whether  the  legislature  sees  fit  to  adopt 
or  to  reject  a  proposed  bill,  it  may  be  referred  to  the  people, 
if  rejected  by  the  legislature,  in  any  form  in  which  it  may 
have  been  introduced   in  the   legislature, — in  its  original  form 


164    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

or  in  an  amended  form, — which  gives  us  the  benefit  of  all  leg- 
islative discussion.  The  legislature  has  not  a  bit  of  power 
faken  away  from  it,  except  the  final  control  of  the  result, 
which   should  rightfully   belong  to  the   people. 

It  will  be  argued  to  you  today  that  this  is  a  change.  Ad- 
mittedly it  is  a  change.  I  would  hardly  agree  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Newmarket,  who  spoke  yesterdaj^  who  said  his 
father  knew  as  much  as  he  and  his  grandfather  knew  as 
much  as  he  did.  I  would  ask  how  the  people  of  any  com- 
munity are  going  to  make  progress  unless  somebody  knows 
more  than  his  father  in  the  community,  and  how  are  we  go- 
ing to   get   ahead  any  unless  we   make   some  changes? 

In  the  time  when  our  New  Hampshire  Constitution  was 
adopted  business  conditions,  social  conditions,  economic  con- 
ditions were  entirely  different  from  what  they  are  today. 
When  it  took  thirty  days  to  get  a  letter  from  New  York  to 
Boston  it  was  absolutely  impossible  to  carry  into  effect  any 
6uch  system  as  the  modern  initiative  and  referendum,  but, 
when  by  means  of  telegraph,  etc.,  we  can  learn,  the  next  day, 
the  result  from  California  of  an  election,  there  is  no  ob- 
struction to  carrj'ing  into  effect  some  modern  form  of  the 
initiative  and  referendum.  The  people  of  New  Hampshire, 
however,  when  they  adopted  the  Constitution  inserted  the 
referendum  in  it.  It  has  always  been  in  effect  in  our  own  Con- 
stitution in  spite  of  the  difficulties  which  were  originally  en- 
countered in  getting  the  popular  vote  of  the  people  to  en- 
dorse that  Constitution.  Any  machine  as  time  goes  on  de- 
velops defects  which  can  be  corrected.  The  vital  defect  which 
has  developed  in  the  machinery  of  our  government  is  that 
the  people  have  not  the  final  control  of  the  results  of  legisla- 
tion. We  can  correct  that  little  defect  by  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  proposed,  and  by  the  submission  of  that  amend- 
ment to  the  people.  It  is  a  change,  but  we  must  make 
changes.     The  poet  Lowell  says, — 

"New  times  demand  new  measures  and  new  men. 
The  world  advances,  and  in  turn  outgrows 
The  laws  that  in  our  fathers'  time  were  best. 
And  doubtless  after  us  some  purer  scheme 
Will  be  shaped  out  by  wiser  men  than  we. 
Made  wiser  by  the  endless   growth   of   truth. 
The  time  is  ripe,  and  rotten  ripe,  for  change. 
Then  let  it  come.     I  have  no  fear  of  what 
Is  called  for  by  the  instinct  of  mankind, 
Nor  think  I  that  God's  world  would  fall  apart 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  165 

Because  we   tear  a  parchment   more   or   less. 
Truth  is  eternal;   but  her  effluence. 
With  endless  change,  is  fitted   to  the  hour. 
Her  mirror  is  turned  forward  to  reflect 
The  promise  of  the  future,  not  the  past." 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Coiword. — I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Jaffrey,  if  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him  to  have  a 
time  fixed  for  the  vote  on  this  matter,  with  the  idea  of  ex- 
pediting the  business  of  the  session? 

Mr.  DwiCttit  of  Jaffrey. — The  only  thing  I  hope  for  is  that  the 
question  will  have  the  freest  and  a  full  discussion  in  the  Com- 
mittee, and  the  Convention,  if  it  seems  necessary,  afterwards. 
With  that  in  view  I  would  have  no  objection  to  having  a  time 
fixed. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Some  hour  this  afternoon  be  agree- 
able?    If  we  give  the  whole  daj^  to  this,  will  that  be  enough? 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — I  think  that  ought  to  be  enough. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  (Joncord. — I  ask  if  the  hour  three  o'clock  would 
be  agreeable? 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  Chairman,  what  would  be  the  diffi- 
culty in  determining  that  a  little  later  when  we  find  how  the 
discussion  is  going  to  shape  itself?  Perhaps  we  shall  be  able  to 
get  to  a  vote  earlier  than  that,  and,  if  we  want  to,  there 
would  be  no  harm, — and  three  o'clock  might  be  too  early. 
It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  satisfactory  to  leave  the  matter 
in  abe3'ance. 

Mr.  Roive  of  Kensington. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  realize  that,  as  one  of  the  younger  members  of 
this  Committee,  and  this  Convention,  my  province  is  probably 
to  keep  silent  and  not  to  speak,  not  only  from  the  fact  that 
this  is  my  first  experience  in  legislative  matters,  but  also 
from  the  fact  that  here  around  me  I  see  men  who  probably 
served  in  legislative  assemblies  before  I  was  born.  So,  such 
being  the  case,  I  beg  your  humble  pardon  for  being  bold 
enough  to  raise  my  voice  here  for  just  a  few  minutes.  I 
won't  take  much  time  and  I  will  soon  be  through.  I  simply 
want  to  speak  because  I  have  a  few  ideas  about  this  subject 
under  discussion  that  I  wish  to  mention;  otherwise  I  would 
not  be  here. 

I  heard  about  a  man  who  once  went  to  a  banquet  to  make 
a  speech,  and,  when  called  upon,  got  up  and  said:  "When  I 
came  here  only  myself  and  God  knew  what  I  was  going  to 
say;  now,  gentlemen,  God  only  knows  and  He  won't  tell!" 
Probably    that   is   the   way   with   me.     I   knew  when   I   got    up 


166    JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

here   what   I   was   going-   to    say;    perhaps   I    don't    now.     How- 
ever, I  am  going  to  start  in. 

Whenever  I  see  a  discussion  starting  in  like  this  one  I 
think  of  what  Daniel  Webster  said  as  he  arose  to  answer  Rob- 
ert Hayne  of  South  Carolina  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  It  was  a  time  of  great  confusion  in  the  Senate  cham- 
ber, and  quietness  and  silence  were  sadly  needed  that  time 
might  be  gained  to  consider  the  question.  Webster  said: 
"Gentlemen,  whenever  anything  arises  like  this  I  think  of  the 
captain  at  sea  when  a  storm  is  raging.  He  does  not  sit  silent 
on  the  deck  and  dream  and  think  about  something  way  up 
in  the  starry  heavens.  He  consults  his  compass  to  see  where 
he  can  get  into  harbor  first  and  get  there  in  safety."  I  think 
that  is  something  as  it  is  with  us  in  this  matter.  I  think  it 
behooves  us  to  look  at  our  compass  and  see  whether  we  can 
get  to   our  port  in  safety. 

In  a  few  moments  I  want  to  tell  you  why  I  am  opposed 
to  the  initiative  and  referendum.  First,  I  am  opposed  to  the 
initiative  and  referendum  because  it  is  impossible  to  work  out 
that  system  under  a  government  as  big  and  a  country  as 
wide  as  ours.  The  New  England  town  meetings  have  been 
cited.  That  is  all  very  well,  but  the  New  England  town  meet- 
ing does  not  compare  with  our  state  government.  A  matter 
that  could  easily  be  discussed  and  finally  settled  in  town 
meeting  could  not  possibly  be  discussed  and  settled  in  a  vast 
state-wide  debate.  That  is  one  reason  why  I  claim  the  project 
cannot  be  worked  out  in  practice  under  the  idea,  of  the  New 
Hampshire  town  meeting.  Also,  I  claim  if  this  is  put  in  prac- 
tice there  will  be  a  general  breaking  down  of  the  laws  that 
have  so  long  guided  us  in  this  country.  I  have  great  re- 
spect for  the  men  who  made  those  laws,  and  I  shall  cling  to 
the  things  they  said  and  the  deeds  they  did  for  a  long,  long 
time,  I  assure  you.  Now  to  get  right  down  to  bed-rock,  I 
claim  in  a  hall  like  this  you  can  clarify,  you  can  clear  out 
the  essentials  of  a  law  better  than  you  can  when  you  take 
a  petition  and  go  up  and  down  the  streets  getting  enough 
signers  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  people.  Under  such  a 
method  I  claim  it  is  practically  impossible  for  the  people  to 
understand  and  get  at  the  bottom  of  a  thing  the  way  they 
can  through  their  representatives,  who  talk  about  it,  and 
■  talk  about  it, — perhaps  all  winter.  You  answer  me  that 
maybe  the  newspapers  will  clarify  it.  Oh,  yes,  they  will 
clarify  it!  Show  me  one  newspaper  that  from  the  start  to 
the  finish,  clear  through  to  the  end,  won't  take  sides  one  way 
or  the   other.    I  have   not  heard  of  one  yet.    So   that  is   the 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  167 

thing    in    a   nutshell.     As    far    as    I    am    concerned,    I   will    not 
bother  you  further. 

I  claim,  first,  that  the   initiative   and  referendum  cannot   be 
carried   out  in  practice;    that  it  is  physically  impossible,  men- 
tally impossible  and  dreamingiy  impossible.     Now,  second,  and 
this  is  my  close,  I  claim  that  if  this  idea  is  put  in  practice  it 
will  mean  a  gradual  breaking  down  of  the  law.     I  claim  that 
the    people   will    not   have    the    same    respect    for   the    laws    of 
this   countrj^   as  they  have   had  in   the   past,  if  this   is   put  in 
practice.     You  answer  me, — we  have  heard  the  argument, — that 
the  people  don't  know  what  their  legislators  are  doing.     Well, 
I  suppose    to   some   folks   that   seems  to   be   an   argument,   but 
to  me  it  proceeds  upon  the  false  idea  that  if  you  do  not  know 
enough    to    choose    competent    legislators    who    will    do    your 
business   for   you,   you    still   know   enough    to   do    the    business 
yourself.     In  other  words,  if  you  cannot  get  a  doctor  to  cure 
you  when  you  are  sick,  you  can  easily  cure  yourself.     For  my 
part,    I   don't    believe   in    doing    business   that    way.     Now   we 
have    heard    about    dentists,    about    visiting    dentists.     I    have 
had  some   teeth  trouble  myself,   and  I  went  to   a  dentist,  but 
I   didn't  go  and  order  him  which  tooth  to   pull;    I  asked  him 
to  do  what  was  right,  telling  him  I  would  abide  by  his  judg- 
ment,  because   I   realized   that  he   knew  more  about   the   mat- 
ter  than   I   did.     Now   your   legislators,    I   will   abide   by   their 
judgment  in  the  House   of  the  United   States  and  in  the   Sen- 
ate  of   the   United   States,    because    I   tEmk    they  know   more 
about   the   matters   coming   before   them  than   I  do.       I   think 
that  is  about  all  I  care  to  say.    I  probably  am  like  that  fel- 
low who  got  up  in  the  banquet,  there  is  more  I  would  like  to 
say  but  it  has  gone  from  me.     However,  I  will  say  to  you  that 
you  have   got  to  go  easily  in  this.     If  these  things  are  to  be 
put  through,  I  want  them  to  go  slowly  and  carefully.     I  will 
close  with  this  stanza  of  poetry  I  composed  this  morning: 
It's   fun   to    dream,   but   dreams   can't   do    it   all,    men; 

They  help  no  doubt  to  cheer  our  saddened  eyes. 
But,  if  we  simply  dream  we're  bound  to  fail,  men. 
As  sure  as  there's  a  God  beyond  the  skies. 
Mr.  Winch  of  Langdon. — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  it  has 
been   interesting   indeed    to    hear    what   we   have   heard,    and    I 
am  glad  to  hear  both  sides  presented,  although  I  am  perhaps 
the   "under   dog,"   and  perhaps  I  am  the  top  one.    We  cannot 
tell   how   the    thing   is    coming    out.     It    must   work   itself    out 
in  this  Convention.     I  was  sorry  when  our  friend  from  Jaffrey 
read  portions  of  Mr.  Sullivan's  letter   that  he  did  not  include 
another  part  of  it.     I   have  not   read  the  whole,  but  it   seems 


168    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

to  me  it  is  pertinent  tb  the  question  he  has  brought  up  before 
this  Committee.  It  is  on  pag-e  67,  commencing-  in  the  second 
section,  near  the  middle.  "I  would  therefore  advise  such 
a  form  of  g-oTernment  as  would  admit  of  but  one  object  to 
be  kept  in  view,  both  by  the  governor  and  the  governed,  yiz., 
the  good  of  the  whole,  that  one  interest  should  imite  the  sev- 
eral governing  branches,  and  that  the  frequent  choice  of  the 
rulers,  by  the  people,  should  operate  as  a  check  upon  their 
conduct  and  remind  them  that  a  new  election  would  soon 
honor  them  for  their  good  conduct,  or  disgrace  them  for  be- 
traj'ing  the  trust  reposed  in  them."  He  very  wisely  omitted 
that  when  he  read  a  portion.  Now  he  says  that  the  legis- 
lators do  not  know  what  the  people  want.  I,  when  I  was  in 
the  legislature  years  ago,  knew  in  some  measure  what  the 
people  wanted.  If  you  don't  believe  it  jou  refer  back  to  the 
legislature  of  1895,  and  see  how  the  petitions  came  in  here 
for  the  agricultural  course  in  the  agricultural  college.  They 
came  from  almost  every  town  in  the  state.  We  knew  what 
the  people  wanted.  The  legislature  acted  upon  it;  it  was  an 
initiative  pure  and  simple.  The  people  wanted  it  in  that  form 
and  they  got  it.  They  have  the  same  privilege  today.  You 
have  got  the  initiative  right  in  your  own  hands,  if  you  will 
use  it.  You  can  petition  to  your  representative  when  at  home 
over  Sunday,  or  for  the  three  days  in  the  week,  as  he  usually 
is;  you  can  meet  that  man  and  he  knows  what  you  want  in 
your  own  town,  or  should  know,  if  yoti  have  interest  enough 
in  any  measure  before  the  legislature  to  go  to  him  and  tell 
him  your  w^ants.  He  says  of  the  legislature,  the  people  do  not 
-know  what  they  are  doing.  I  am  sorry  that  there  is  anybody 
in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  who  does  not  read  the  news- 
papers, so  they  do  not  know  what  the  legislature  is  doing. 
There  is  hardly  a  newspaper  in  the  state  but  weekly  gives 
the  doings  of  our  legislature,  when  in  session,  and  tells 
the  important  measures  brought  there  for  it  to  consider. 
The  people  should  know  what  those  measures  are,  and  if  each 
one  of  us  will  pay  a  dollar  a  session,  as  a  rule,  and  get  the 
daily  paper,  he  may  know  every  night  what  the  doings  of  the 
legislature  were  the  day  before,  what  the  measures  were,  the 
progress  made,  and  the  prospect  that  is  in  view.  Now  I  claim 
that  the  people  do  know  what  is  being  done  in  the  legislature. 
Of  course,  as  our  friend  from  Jaffrey  said,  legislators  like 
suggestions.  We  do,— we  did  at  that  time.  I  won't  say  "we 
do"  because  I  am  not  a  member  of  the  legislature,  but  we 
did  at  that  time.  It  was  good  for  us  w^hen  we  received  from 
our  constituents  throughout  the  state  some  response,  and  they 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  169 

gave  us  information  of  what  they  wanted,  what  they  de- 
sired. There  are  thing-s,  of  course,  that  come  up.  He  spoke 
of  the  Three  Trunk  Line  bill.  That,  I  know%  has  been  quite  a 
bugbear  to  a  portion  of  the  state,  but  it  is  simply  a  question 
for  the  benefit  of  the  state,  for  the  increase  of  the  revenue 
to  the  state  by  the  summer  travel  and  those  things,  to  the 
mountain  scenery,  the  better  accommodations  to  the  pub- 
lic, and  for  our  own  benefit.  The  state  roads  are  kept  up  for 
us  in  our  small  towns,  that  they  maj-  be  more  suitable  for 
travel,  both  in  the  springtime  and  in  the  fall.  Of  course  we 
must  advance,  and  it  is  progress,  a  road  to  progress,  we  are 
using  in  making  the  roads  better  and  more  suitable  for  farm- 
ers, and  for  the  merchants  and  the  citzens  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  those  adjoining  us  when  they  come  into  it;  and  I  think 
I  am  right  when  I  say  that  the  roads  of  Xew  Hampshire  com- 
pare very  favorably  with  those  of  any  other  state  in  the  Union. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  all  the  referendum  that  we 
need.  If  there  is  any  measure  that  needs  to  be  referred  to 
the  people,  that  the  people  want  referred  to  them,  why,  under 
the  light  of  the  sun  don't  you  get  up  a  petition  and  send  to 
the  legislature  and  ask  them  to  refer  it  to  the  people.  Your 
representative  would  heed  such  an  admonition  from  your 
town.  If  there  was  an  important  measure  that  they  wanted 
to  vote  upon,  those  people  would  send  to  you  asking  that  you 
have  this  thing  referred  to  them,  and  then  they  could  decide 
whether  they  want  it  or  not.  Another  thing,  would  a  repre- 
sentative feel  that  he  was  honored  by  having  such  an  umbrella 
thrown  over  his  head  when  he  comes  up  here,  and  acts  from 
the  purest  and  best  motives  to  have  laws  passed  that  shall 
be  beneficial  to  the  whole  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire? Do  you  think  he  would  feel  the  same  care  and  dig- 
nity if  he  felt  that  perhaps  four  or  five  thousand  of  the, — 
I  won't  say  w^hat  class  of  people, — sought  to  get  a  referendum, 
and  cast  that  thing  before  the  people,  w^hen  he  in  his  honest 
opinions  had  given  to  them  the  best  he  knew  how?  Gentler 
men,  I  think  it  would  force  an  undignified  position  on  our 
representatives.  Perhaps  I  am  wrong,  but  that  is  the  way  it 
looks  to  me,  and  I  hope  this  referendum  and  initiative  will 
have  the  go-by  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Dutwan  of  Jaffrey. — I  am  glad  to  hear  the  gentleman  make 
those  remarks  advocating  the  referendum.  He  suggested  that 
the  people  could  petition  their  representatives,  their  legis- 
lators, and  have  measures  referred  to  them,  if  they  wished. 
That  is  not  so.  It  is  not  possible  under  our  Constitution,  and 
that  is  just  what  the  advocates  of  this  measure  are  trying  to 
get. 


170    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Neicmarket.—^ir.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  am  free  to  aeknowledg-e  that  I  know"  but  little 
on  this  subject,  and  you  will  believe  that  and  be  able  to  say 
"Amen"  after  I  have  finished.  From  the  housetops.  Sir,  from 
on  level  ground,  and  from  underneath  the  ground  we  hear 
people  shouting  "Progress."  The  progressives  are  leading  the 
line  and  they  are  calling  for  every  Christian  soldier  to  follow 
them.  Now  if  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  through  its  legis- 
lators, or  through  its  Constitutional  Convention,  is  to  be 
progressive,  we  have  got  to  accept  all  these  new-fangled  fads 
and  notions — the  referendum,  the  initiative  and  the  recall. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  they  would  only  make  that  plainer. 
Now  the  recall,  as  I  understand  it,  is  simply  this:  The  gen- 
tleman from  Claremont  works  for  me,  and  I  don't  want  him 
any  longer,  and  instead  of  saying  "skidoo"  or  "get  out,"  I 
recall  him.  Now  some  people  go  so  far  as  to  want  to  recall  the 
Courts,  or  their  decisions.  Well  now,  all  judges  are  human;  all 
judges  don't  know  everything.  They  know  much  of  law,  a 
little  smattering  of  other  things,  but  they  don't  know  very 
much  about  medicine  and  politics,  unless  they  have  been  poli- 
ticians before  they  were  admitted  to  the  bar,  or  before  they 
were  appointed  to  the  judgeship,  and  they  don't  know  much 
about  medicine  unless  they  have  studied  it  up,  and  I  shall 
never  vote  to  recall  the  decision  of  judges  unless  I  have  more 
light,  and  have  become  convinced  that  I  know  more  than  my 
father  or  my  grandfather.  New  Hampshire  is  a  small  state. 
Were  she  ironed  out  as  fiat  as  some  of  the  states  in  the  West, 
we  should  have  more  territory,  but  she  is  not  small,  Sir,  in 
brains  or  intellect.  And  in  the  past  the  representatives  of 
New  Hampshire,  men  who  are  born  here,  have  furnished  more 
brains  to  the  square  inch  to  other  states  than  any  other  state 
in  the  nation.  We  have  sent  men  who  were  born  in  New 
Hampshire  to  other  states  for  development,  but  if  they  had 
not  been  born  with  that  trotting  instinct  they  could  not  have 
developed  into  two-minute  trotters.  If  they  had  not  been 
born  with  brains  they  could  not  have  had  them  developed.  If 
the  soil  is  not  there  you  can  plow  and  fertilize  until  you  are 
black  in  the  face,  and  you  can  never  raise  a  crop  in  a  stone 
heap.  Now  I  am  not  sure,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  but 
the  initiative  is  all  right,  and  the  referendum.  The  right  of 
petition  has  been  since  Adam  and  Eve  were  in  the  garden  of 
Eden.  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  I  could  go  out  and  get  a 
large  number  of  the  members  of  this  Committee  to  sign  a 
petition  to  hang  themselves,  if  I  said  so.  A  good  many  of 
you  would   sign  it    because   I   said   so.     If  I   should   tell  you  a 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  171 

cyclone  was  on  the  way,  which  started  from  Washington,  you 
would  go  to  the  cyclone  cellar  in  a  moment.  Now  people  do 
not  read,  do  not  digest,  do  not  assimilate  petitions  as  they 
ought  to.  A  friend  of  mine  met  me  in  the  ante-room  last 
week  and  said:  "Doctor,  I  would  like  to  have  you  sign  this 
petition."  I  came  pretty  near  signing  it  because  he  asked  me. 
I  looked  at  it  and  said:  "Heavens!  I  think  I  have  signed 
one  on  the  other  side."  Now  what  would  have  been  the  re- 
sult had  I  signed  both  petitions?  The  men  that  knew  me 
would  think  or  would  say,  "He  is  a  wishy-washy  sort  of  fel- 
low, and  his  signature  doesn't  amount  to  anything."  But  I 
think,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  before 
we  cast  to  the  four  winds  of  the  earth,  I  would  like  to  ask 
a  question:  Is  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Harvard  Col- 
lege to  speak  on  the  referendum  tonight  or  did  he  speak  last 
night? 

Mr.  Duncan,  of  Jaffrey. — I  would  say  for  the  information  of 
the  gentleman  from  Newmarket  that  Professor  Johnson  spoke 
last  night. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Xeicmarket. — I  didn't  hear  him.  I  am  sorry.  So 
you  cannot  say  I  am  repeating  what  he  said.  I  thought  he 
was  going  to  speak  tonight.  You  who  heard  him  are  better 
qualified  to  vote  upon  that  sometime  within  a  short  time,  as 
my  friend  Lj'ford  suggests,  to  get  it  out  of  the  way,  the  same 
as  I  wanted  all  the  amendments  relative  to  the  cutting  down 
the  House  put  out  of  the  way  yesterday,  but  you  said  "No," 
and  I  submitted.  But  I  think  I  am  going  to  trim  you  before 
I  get  through  with  you,  because  I  don't  think  they  are  going 
to  do  anything.  I  think  they  are  going  to  let  well  enough 
alone.  Of  all  the  gentlemen  that  offered  arguments  yesterday 
for  cutting  the  House  down  not  one  presented  a  plan,  no  one 
said  how  you  could  do  it.  If  a  man  is  going  to  build  a  piazza 
on  my  house  to  improve  it.  I  want  him  to  tell  me  how  he  is 
going  to  build  it,  what  to  put  on,  and  where  to  stop.  "When 
you  don't  know  what  to  do,  buy  of  Osgood."  I  think  we  have 
discussed  this  matter  carefully,  and  all  these  "Fines,"  as  we 
always  have  some  in  the  legislature — the  gentleman  from 
Jaffrey  and  the  gentleman  from  Kensington,  fine,  sure  gentle- 
men— if  we  get  all  the  "Fines"  upon  the  floor  of  the  House 
and  they  tell  us  what  we  ought  to  do,  I  am  in  doubt  but  what 
I  would  be  right  in  following  their  advice,  if  they  are  a  good 
deal  younger  than  I  am. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warreji. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  this  measure  has  been  described  as  a  radical,  pro- 
gressive   measure.     Now   as    I    understand    this    issue    of    initi- 


172    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ative  and  referendum,  it  is  not  a  radical  measure.  On.  the  con- 
trarj'^  it  is  a  conservative  measure.  It  has  been  adopted  by 
a  great  many  of  our  Western  states,  and  our  Western  states 
have  been  settled  by  some  of  the  best  people  of  Newr  Hamp- 
shire, and  as  a  fruit  of  that  people  have  come  some  of  these 
so-called  measures,  and  you  have  one  of  them  that  has  been 
modified  until  it  is  no  longer  radical.  Now  in  regard  to  my 
friend  from  Newmarket,  who  has  just  spoken  and  given  an 
illustration,  I  would  like  to  carry  that  illustration  a  little 
further  regarding  a  physician  being  called  in. 

Suppose  my  friend  from  Newmarket  had  been  called  into 
my  family,  and  after  he  had  doctored  there  six  or  eight 
months,  and  the  patient  didn't  get  any  better,  I  go  around 
and  I  take  a  referendum  among  my  friends,  and  ask  them  what 
I  had  better  do  about  it.  I  have  some  bright,  scholarly  people 
among  them,  whom  I  hope  have  horse  sense,  and  they  say, 
perhaps,  "You  ought  to  have  a  consultation  of  doctors."  We 
have  a  consultation.  After  looking  the  case  over  and  getting 
a  different  physician  the  patient  gets  well.  Now  that  is  rather 
bad  for  my  friend  from  Newmarket,  but  it  is  a  good  thing 
for  the  patient.  Once  more,  the  gentleman  has  spoken  here 
about  being  in  the  legislature  of  1895.  He  says  that  the  legis- 
lators usually  know  what  they  are  doing  when  they  pass  bills. 
It  was  my  fortune,  or  misfortune,  to  be  in  the  legislature  of 
1897,  and  again  in  1899.  In  the  last  days  of  the  session  of  1897 
was  introduced  the  measure  entitled  "Railroad  Police,  Etc.'* 
That  was  the  nature  of  the  title.  It  had  no  more  to  do  with 
the  bill  than  black  does  with  white.  That  bill  was  taken  up 
in  the  last  days  of  the  session  and  rushed  through  under  its 
title,  and  what  did  it  prove  to  be?  It  wiped  off  all  the  anti- 
pass  legislation  in  New  Hampshire.  What  did  the  legislators 
know  about  it?  The  majority  of  them  absolutely  nothing, 
absolutely  fiothinff.  Now,  do  you  suppose  that  if  we  had  had 
the  referendum  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  that  would 
have  stood  there  for  six  or  eight  years?  It  did  create  a  good 
deal  of  stir  among  both  parties.  The  Grange  took  it  up,  and 
both  parties  put  it  into  their  platform.  And  did  they  reform 
it  in  the  next  legislature?  No,  Sir,  it  was  defeated.  They 
referred  it  to  the  Constituional  Convention,  and  the  Consti- 
tutional Convention  kicked  it  out — as  I  said  they  would — but 
after  several  years  of  agitation  they  have  succeeded  at  last 
in  wiping  that  blot  off  our  statute  books.  How  would  it  have 
stood  under  the  referendum?  Would  they  have  been  as  long 
about  it?    I  think  not. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterhr/rmiph. — I  wish  to  say  one  word  in  regard 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  173 

to  this  resolution.  I  don't  propose  to  say  a  word  in  regard 
to  the  recall.  It  is  not  included  in  this.  The  word  initiative 
does  not  apply  to  this  resolution.  If  you  examine  every  state 
in  this  Union  where  they  have  adopted  the  initiative,  recall  and 
referendum,  you  will  find  this  is  different  from  every  one.  TliPe 
referendum  refers  to  acts  passed  by  the  legislature,  empower- 
ing a  certain  number  of  voters  to  call  for  that  act  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people.  It  is  submitted  and  they  have  the  right 
to  say  whether  it  shall  be  a  law  or  not.  The  initiative  in  this 
resolution  simply  refers  to  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution, 
and  I  believe  it  is  the  most  radical  change  and  the  most  disas- 
trous change  that  can  be  made  by  any  legislature  or  any  Con- 
vention, to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  approval.  It 
provides  in  substance  this,  that  8,000  voters  in  this  state  can 
petition  for  any  change  in  the  Constitution  that  they  see  fit; 
then  this  is  submitted  to  the  people,  and  those  who  vote  say 
"3'es"  or  "no,"  and  it  either  becomes  a  part  of  the  Constitution  or 
not.  I  believe  for  several  reasons  that  it  is  the  most  radical  and 
most  disastrous  move  we  can  make  here  today.  Why,  Mr. 
Debs  or  Mr.  Ettor  or  Mr.  Morgan,  or  anyone  else,  can  come 
into  this  state  and  draft  a  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion of  New  Hampshire;  they  can  present  that  petition  to 
8,000  voters  of  this  state,  an'd  if  they  sign  it,  that  petition  is 
acted  upon  by  the  voters  without  any  right  to  amend  or 
change  it  in  any  way.  Any  man  can  draw  a  petition  for  a 
change  in  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  and  can  get 
8,000  voters  in  this  state  to  sign  that  petition.  It  may  be  a 
radical  change,  it  may  be  an  important  change,  it  may  be  a 
change  w^hich  will  affect  the  welfare,  interest  and  good  of 
this  state  forever  until  it  can  again  be  changed,  and  there  is 
no  power  in  this  state  to  change  that  bill  after  the  petition 
is  presented  by  this  8,000.  Now  I  believe  that  of  itself  is 
enough  to  condemn  this  resolution  and  send  it  to  oblivion. 
And  I  for  one  am  willing  to  stand  upon  that  one  issue  in 
this  resolution,  that  one  clause,  and  cast  my  vote  to  have  it 
indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  Chairman,  with  regard  to  that  I 
would  say  that  it  seems  to  me  if  a  majority  of  the  citizens 
of  New  Hampshire  wanted  to  have  such  a  provision  in  their 
Constitution  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  have  it.  It  can- 
not be  very  dangerous  if  a  majority  of  the  people  of  New 
^Hampshire  wanted  to  have  it,  but  I  propose  when  this  ques- 
tion comes  to  a  vote  under  the  laws  of  the  Convention, 
under  the  rules  of  the  Convention,  to  divide  the  resolution  at 
line  88,  because  it  should  not,  perhaps,  have  been  combined  in 


174      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  one  resolution, — the  question  dealing-  with  the  -Constitu- 
tion and  the  question  dealing  with  legislation.  It  was  com- 
bined as  a  no^atter  of  convenience,  that  they  might  be  consid- 
ered together,  but  when  the  time  comes  for  voting  I  shall 
make  a  motion  that  the  question  be  divided  at  that  point. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterhoroitgh. — One  word  in  answer  to  that.  I 
had  occasion  this  morning  to  go  into  the  State  library  and 
look  over  the  votes  of  California  and  Oregon  in  regard  to  the 
question  of  submitting  the  laws  to  the  voters  for  their  rati- 
fication. I  found  that  on  every  question  submitted  from  Ore- 
gon in  two  succeeding  years  not  enough  members  voted  on 
the  yea  and  nay  to  comprise  one  half  of  the  legal  voters  of 
that  state,  as  they  voted  for  governor.  There  was  not  one 
single  bill  during  those  two  years  where  one  half  of  the  vot- 
ers of  Oregon  either  voted  for  or  against  the  amendment,  and 
I  believe  that  would  be  the  case  here.  I  took  occasion  to  look 
at  the  bills  of  California,  and  out  of  twenty-three  bills  that 
California  submitted  at  one  time  not  a  single  bill  received  the 
support  of  a  majority  of  the  voters  of  the  state  who  voted  for 
governor. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — With  all  respect  to  the  gentleman 
from  Peterborough,  I  should  like  to  ask  for  the  exact  figures 
he  discovered.  I  have  some  that  do  not  exactly  agree  with 
that. 

The  Chairman . — Can  the  gentleman  answer  his  question? 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough. — I  will  look  for  my  figures. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Nenymarlcct. — While  the  gentleman  from  Peter- 
borough is  collecting  his  figures,  I  desire  to  make  this  state- 
ment because  I  believe  It  is  correct:  that  the  initiative  and  the 
referendum — and  I  was  going  to  say  the  recall,  but  I  will  ex- 
clude that— has  been  in  the  platform  of  the  Democratic  party 
for  a  number  of  years.  It  is  also  in  the  platform  in  differ- 
ent states, — in  the  Progressive  platform.  I  am  not  sure 
whether  it  was  in  the  last  Progressive  platform.  My  friend 
Lyford  says  "No."  It  wouldn't  have  been  in  there  if  he  could 
have  helped  it,  I  bet  a  cent.  If  that  be  the  case,  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee  we  are  not  so  crazy  as  some  of  the  speak- 
ers that  are  opposed  to  this  would  have  you  believe.  It  will 
be,  in  my  judgment.  Sir,  in  all  the  platforms,  both  the  Demo- 
cratic and  Republican,  ere  long.  That  being  the  case,  let 
New  Hampshire  start  right  and  we  will  win. 

Mr.  Herher^t  of  Rinmiey.—The  gentleman  from  Jaffrey  admits 
this  is  little  known  in  the  state,  and  even  in  the  Convention. 
That  is  sufficient  reason  in  itself  why  we  should  not  pass 
it,  because  it  is  not  known.     He  admits  we  have  got  along  142 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  175 

years  splendidly  as  we  are,  and  I  think  it  is  safe  to  risk  it 
a  while  longer.  Josh  Billings  says:  "If  j^ou  are  in  a  hurry, 
go  slow." 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen   of  the 
Committee,  I  had  no  intention  of  speaking  on  this  subject  this 
morning,   but  I  have  listened  attentively  for  some  one  who  is 
in    favor    of    this    resolution   to    advance    some    reason    why    it 
should    be    incorporated    into   the    Constitution    of    New   Hamp- 
shire.    Now  I  suppose  we  all  agree  that  when  a  great  change, 
a  radical  change,  and  an  important  change,  is  made  in  the  Con- 
stitution  of  this   state   there  should   be   some   good   reason   for 
that   change.     I   fail   to   discover  in   the    remarks   made   by   the 
gentleman    from    Jaffrey    any    reason    why    the    state    of    New 
Hampshire    needs    this    change    at    all.     Now,    unless    we    need 
this  change  in  the  Constitution,  unless   there. is  some  demand 
by  the  people  of  this  state  for  it,  then  we  should  not  present 
it  to   them.     I  take   it   there   is  no  politics  in  this   Convention. 
I  take  it  there  is  no  politics  in  this  resolution.     Consequently 
each  man   is  at  liberty   to   give  his  best  thought   and  best  de- 
cision to  the   question.     Now  let  us  see  what  this  means.    It 
means  that,  if  the  legislature,  of  New  Hampshire  passes  a  law, 
4,000  voters  can  petition  to  have  the  measure  sent  to  the  peo- 
ple   for    ratification    or    rejection.       What    is    the    need    of    the 
initiative    and    referendum   in   a   state   which    has   a  legislature 
of  the  size  which  New  Hampshire  has, — some  400  or  more.     We 
have  a  pretty  good  chance  for  the  initiative  and  referendum  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  itself.     There  is  a  representative 
practically  to  every  225  voters  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  for  God's  sake  what  more  representation  do  you  want  than 
that?     What    more    representation    does    the    state    want    than 
that?     Now%  what  are  the  people  electing  representatives  for? 
They  are  sending  them  here  to  Concord  to  pass  such  laws  as 
the    state    needs,    and    nothing    more    and    nothing   less.     They 
are  selected  from  the  people   of  the  state  for  the  reason  that 
they   have   the   ability   to   consider   properly    such   measures   as 
the    state   needs.     I   listened   expecting    that    some   in   favor   of 
this  resolution  would  cite  some  statute  law  which  was  an  out- 
rage on  the  people;    that   the  legislature  had   done   something 
which    disgraced    themselves    and   the    people.     Nothing    of   the 
kind  has  been  presented,  and  for  the  more  than  thirty  years 
that  I  have  been  familiar  with  the  legislature  and  the  laws  passed 
by   it  not   one    law    has   been   passed   that   would   disgrace   the 
people.     One   gentleman   says  that  the  railroad   legislation  has 
been  a  disgrace  to  New  Hampshire.    Why  doesn't  he  cite  the 
law  and  tell  us  what  it  was  that  disgraced  the  legislature? 


176     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Sturtevant  of  Kcene. — The   Salem  race  track  bill. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord. — The  Salem  race  track  bill  was  not  a 
railroad  measure.  I  presume  that  some  men  who  were  in  the 
House  at  that  time  are  members  of  this  Convention  and  can 
explain  it.  But  the  Salem  race  track  bill  did  not  do  any  great 
harm  because  the  Courts  took  care  of  it  pretty  spry  when  it 
reached  them — the  same  Courts  which  some  of  our  Progres- 
sive friends  want  to  recall.  The  Courts  could  be  trusted; 
the  Courts  took  care  oi  that  bill  when  the  question  reached 
them. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  1  have  great  faith  in  the  people.  No  man 
has  greater  faith  in  the  judgment  of  the  people  than  I  have. 
It  is  my  business  to  talk  to  jurors,  and  seldom,  if  ever,  does 
a  jury  return  a  verdict  which  is  wrong.  Occasionally  it  may 
Jiappen.  Now  3'ou  are  a  jury,  and  what  is  there  about  the 
Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  with  reference  to  passing  our 
laws  at  the  present  time  which  is  wrong?  Who  has  pointed 
out  anything  that  satisfies  you  that  the  legislature  of  Nevi^ 
Hampshire  cannot  be  trusted  as  it  has  been  trusted  for  more 
than  one  hundred  years?  Has  it  been  pointed  out  here  by  any 
one  that  the  people  are  not  capable  of  returning  men  to  the 
House  who  can  safely  be  trusted?  If  anything  has  been  ad- 
vanced, I  have  not  heard  it. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  as  I  look  at  this  resolution  it  is  the  most 
miserable  proposition  that  was  ever  put  up  to  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire.  The  gentleman  from  Peterborough  spoke  of 
the  power  of  8,000  voters  to  present  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution.  That  is  sufficient  to  destroy  this  whole  resolu- 
tion, sufficient  for  every  man  to  vote  in  the  negative  when  it 
comes  up  for  passage. 

Gentlemen,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  again  to  the  fact 
that  no  one  has  advanced  any  reason  why  this  change  should 
be  made.  When  we  talk  about  taxes,  when  we  talk  about  the 
number  of  representatives  that  should  come  to  this  hall,  then 
we  have  something  that  the  people  can  understand  that  needs 
a  remedy,  perhaps;  but  this  is  all  sentiment,  it  has  grown  up 
as  a  sentiment,  and  when  they,  the  friends  of  this  measure, 
cite  what  the  Western  states  have  done,  what  has  that  to  do 
with  us?  Do  we  need  the  change  because  some  far  Western 
state  has  seen  fit  to  pass  it?  That  is  no  reason.  How  many 
of  you  know  anything  about  the  working  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum  in  the  states  where  it  has  been  passed?  How 
many  of  you  know  whether  the  people  are  in  favor  of  it  or 
against  it?  If  hasn't  been  tried  out  yet.  We  know  nothing 
about  it,  and  I  assert  that  the  people   of  New  Hampshire  can 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  177 

still  be  trusted  to  return  men  to  this  hall,  men  who  will  pass 
all  the  laws  we  need,  and  not  disgrace  their  constituents, 
themselves,  or  the  state. 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  we  have  heard  some  very  interesting"  discussions 
on  this  proposition,  in  a  sort  of  general  way.  As  far  as  I  can 
find  the  opposition  consists  in  generalities.  We  have  heard 
the  statement  that  this  is  an  experimental  measure,  and  a 
measure  which  is  impracticable  and  will  not  work  in  the 
United  States;  that  we  know  nothing-  about  it  and  it  is  en- 
tirely untried,  etc.,  etc.  I  am  sorry  all  of  you  gentlemen 
could  not  have  heard  Professor  Johnson  last  night  recite  a  few 
facts  in  connection  with  this  issue.  In  the  first  place,  he 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  people  last  night  the  fact  that 
Switzerland  has  had  it  in  use,  and  in  practical  use,  for  the 
last  fiftj-  years,  and  that  the  conditions  which  led  to  its 
adoptioil  in  Switzerland  are  almost  identical  with  the  condi- 
tions that  confront  us  today;  also  that  Switzerland  is  as 
large  as  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island  and  New  Hampshire, 
and  in  population  more  than  Xew  Hampshire.  Now  the  effect 
of  putting  this  into  operation  in  Switzerland  has  been  that 
they  have  done  awaj'  with  those  conditions  which  existed, 
which  were  actually  preventing  the  government  from  being 
representative,  and  he  proved  conclusively  that  this  thing  is 
practicable  in  its  operation,  and  does  accomplish  what  It  is 
intended  to  accomplish.  Furthermore,  it  is  working  and  in 
successful  operation  in  this  country,  and  has  been  in  some 
states  as  long  as  fifteen  years.  The  gentleman  who  just 
spoke  says  he  has  not  heard  any  argument  in  favor  of  it. 
I  take  it  for  granted  he  was  not  in  here  when  Mr.  Duncan 
spoke,  or  he  could  not  positively  have  made  that  statement 
as  he  did.  I  got  interested  in  this  proposition  as  a  business 
man.  I  happen  to  be  fortunate  enough  to  be  in  charge  of  one 
of  the  largest  manufacturing  interests  in  this  state,  and  I  want 
to  sa}'  right  now  I  have  faith  in  the  people  of  this  state.  In 
our  own  establishment  we  have  some  thirty  nationalities,  and 
I  for  one  do  not  fear  this  mob  rule  proposition  that  has  been 
advanced.  I  believe  when  it  comes  to  submitting  any  propo- 
sition to  the  people  you  will  get  a  good,  fair,  equitable  judg- 
ment. As  a  business  man,  I  have  used  the  initiative  and 
referendum  principle.  If  we  have  any  important  measure  or 
change  to  make  in  our  organization  we  refer  it  to  the  depart- 
ment heads,  and  the  various  ones  that  are  interested,  and  in 
a  good  many  instances  to  the  individual  workman,  to  get  a 
collective  judgment  of  what  is  best  to  do. 


178     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

There  is  one  other  argument  which  has  been,  brought  up 
and  was  advanced  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  namely, 
that  this  thing  takes  away  from  the  legislature  the  power 
delegated  to  it  by  the  people  and  prevents  them  from  acting 
according  to  their  best  judgment.  I  wish  to  deny  this  and 
point  out  the  fact  that  in  actual  practice  it  does  not  w^ork  that 
way.  You  would  not  for  a  minute  consider  allowing  an  of- 
ficer in  a  bank  to  go  unbonded.  You  g^ive  him  all  the  priv- 
ileges to  exercise  his  right  as  an  officer  in  the  bank,  and  to 
use  his  good  judgment  to  do  the  things  that  he  should  do. 
The  fact  that  he  is  under  bond  does  not  give  him  any  less 
freedom  but  merely  assures  the  depositors  that  he  can  do  them 
no  harm  through  following  his  own  selfish  inclinations.  He 
more  truly  represents  the  depositors  by  being  held  strictly 
accountable  to  them  at  all  times.  This  is  exactly  how  initi- 
ative and  referendum  works  in  safeguarding  the  people  in  our 
political  world. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  it 
is  very  nearly  dinner-time,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  take  much 
time.  However,  I  have  two  boj-^s  in  my  family,  ten  and  eleven 
years  of  age.  One  is  a  hot-headed  advocate  of  the  man  from 
Oyster  Bay  and  the  other  is  for  President  Taft,  and  so  be- 
tween them  I  get  pretty  well  posted  on  the  campaign.  So 
in  this  discussion  I  am  getting  educated  and  posted  on  the 
question  before  us.  I  want  to  say  as  to  the  point  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Smith,  that  I  could 
not  support  that  part  of  this  resolution  applying  the  initi- 
ative in  making  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  but  I  do  feel 
inclined  to  support  the  first  part  of  this  resolution,  the  initi- 
ative and  referendum  as  to  legislation.  I  am  surprised  at  the 
argument  made  by  the  last  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mar- 
tin. He  asks:  "What  'demand'  is  there  for  this?"  I  find  his 
name  in  italics  in  the  list  of  members,  which  means  that  he  is 
a  Democrat.     I  turn  to  his  last  Democratic  platform, — 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord. — Not  mine  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — "Which  I  understand  he  himself 
helped  formulate  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Reso- 
lutions, and  find  it  says:  "We  demand  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum." So  I  would  refer  him  to  his  platform  as  one  place 
of  many  to  look  for  the  "demand"  for  the  initiative  and  ref- 
erendum. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  the  Committee  took 
a  recess  of  one  hour. 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  179 

After  K:boess. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  moved  to  recommend  to  the  Con- 
Yention  the  following  amendment  'to  the  resolution: — 

Strike  out  all  of  the  resolution  after  the  words, — 

"Re-number  Article  Yl,  making  it  Article  VII,  and  like- 
wise re-number  all  succeeding  articles  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Consti'tution." 

By  unanimous  consent  the  amendment  was  recommended 

Mr.  Oakes  of  Lisbon. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  as  one 
of  the  Committee,  when  I  came  here  I  intended  to  say  abso- 
lutely nothing,  but  to  vote;  but  as  the  debate  has  progressed 
and  men  from  one  side  and  the  other  have  expressed  their 
viev^'s,  I  find  my  interest  has  become  so  aroused  that  the  im- 
pulse to  express  my  views  has  become  too  strong  to  resist. 

I  claim  no  special  knowledge  of  this  subject,  but  I  have  read 
all  the  literature  that  has  been  sent  out  by  the  league  in  favor 
of  initiative  and  referendum.  I  have  read  numberless  maga- 
zine articles  on  the  subject,  and  in  every  article  we  are  pointed 
to  Switzerland  to  learn  how  to  run  our  government.  I  ca;re 
not  whether  Switzerland  has  the  initiative  and  referendum. 
England  has  her  king;  Germany  has  her  emperor,  and  Russia 
her  czar,  and  their  subjects  live  and  exist  under  more  or  less 
satisfactory  conditions,  but  to  my  mind  that  is  no  reason  why 
we  should  change  our  form  of  government  and  adopt  theirs. 
There  is  one  thing  that  has  impressed  me  in  listening  to  the 
arguments  in  favor  of  this  measure,  and  that  is  to  see  how 
the  area  of  Switzerland  has  increased  since  I  went  to  school, 
but  that  is  neither  here  nor  there. 

Last  night  Professor  Johnson,  in  reading  from  the  history 
of  Switzerland,  made  the  following  statement:  That  eighteen 
years  after  Switzerland  adopted  her  Constitution  she  found 
that  it  was  impossible  to  exist  thereunder  as  it  stood,  and  they 
therefore  called  a  Constitutional  Convention  and  amended  it  to 
meet  the  conditions  which  they  found  existed.  That,  Gentle- 
men, is  all  well  and  good. 

Our  Constitution  has  existed  from  1798  with  a  good  deal  of 
success.  Switzerland  was  only  able  to  exist  for  eighteen 
years.  Our  Constitution  has  lasted  longer  than  that.  Because 
Switzerland  could  not  draw  a  Constitution  under  which  they 
could  live  for  more  than  eighteen  years,  and  had  to  adopt  the 


180     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

initiative  and  referendum  because  of  inherent  weakness  in 
their  Constitution,  is  no  reason  why  we  should  follow  their 
example.  We  have  drawn  one  that  has  lasted  120  j'ears. 
There  is  no  comparison  between  the  two.  If  we  find  that 
our  Constitution  is  not  working,  as  Switzerland  found  hers 
was  not,  I  will  gladly  work  and  vote  for  the  initiative  and 
referendum,  if  that  is  what  will  save  us.  Until  that  time,  I 
can  see  no  reason  nor  cause  for  it. 

In  a  letter  of  General  Sullivan  to  Mr.  Weare,  which  was 
read  this  morning  as  an  authority,  General  Sullivan  in  re- 
ferring to  the  Constitution  of  England  says:  "And  I  almost 
venture  to  prophesy  that  England  will  soon  fall."  England 
is  still  existing  under  her  Constitution,  so  the  General  was  not 
infallible,  but  he  was  prophesying  then  for  England  what  the 
advocates  of  this  measure  are  now  prophesying  for  us.  If 
we  see  within  the  next  ten  years  that  our  government  is  about 
to  totter  and  fall,  then  and  then  only,  I  think,  should  we 
tamper  with  the  Constitution  as  it  stands  today  to  such  a 
radical  extent  as  is  proposed,  and  trj'  a  remedy  which  has  not 
been  proved  to  be  workable  in  our  part  of  the  country  and 
under   conditions   which   are   familiar. 

Mr.  Davis  of  ^eio  Ipswich. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  as 
some  of  those  who  oppose  us  have  found  occasion  to,  in  a  way, 
criticise  our  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  and  our  action, 
I  think  it  only  just  and  fair  to  ourselves,  and  to  you,  that  we 
in  a  way  reply.  One  of  the  first  was  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  Kensington.  Well,  w^hen  he  appeared,  from  his 
La  Follette  appearance,  I  really  looked  for  something  good. 
He  started  in  by  saying  that  the  Lord  only  knew  what  he  was 
going  to  say,  an'd  although  I  listened  attentively,  and  I  be- 
lieve intelligently,  to  all  his  remarks,  when  he  finished,  so  far 
as  I  could  see,  the  Lord  still  kept  his  secret. 

Then  came  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr. 
Smith.  He  is  a  good  and  capable  man.  He  is  a  neighbor  of 
mine.  We  are  only  nine  miles  apart.  He  is  able  and  compe- 
tent, but  though  he  has  had  this  little  amendment  for  some- 
thing like  two  weeks,  and  studied  it  carefully,  with  all  his 
ability  he  could  only  find  one  little  fault  with  it,  and  when 
he  came  to  look  for  that  the  second  time  it  was  so  small  that 
it  had  gotten  away  from  him.  To  his  great  relief,  T  believe 
we  have  removed  that  objection.  Our  third  opponent  was  the 
legal  gentleman  from  Concord.  He  looked  quite  formidable 
and  I  began  to  tremble  in  my  shoes,  but,  with  all  due  respect 
to  him,  he  soon  slopped  over  and  ran  against  a  question  that 
was    very    hard    for    him    to    answer,    something    which    cooled 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  181 

him  off  wonderfully.  He  asks  us  for  reasons,  reasons  why  this 
amendment  should  be  adopted.  Why,  Gentlemen  of  this  Con- 
vention, there  are  so  many  reasons,  and  good  reasons,  that 
it  would  take  me  from  sunrise  to  sunset  to  tell  them,  and  I 
couldn't  begin  to  do  them  justice. 

First  let  me  make  this  statement,  and  I  know  it  to  be  true. 
Gentlemen,  if  we   adopt  this  amendment  it  will  mean  that  the 
voice  and  the   brains  of  the  people  of  Xew  Hampshire   will  be 
ever    and    eternally    in    the    mind    and    conscience    of    its    legis- 
lators.    This  measure,  Gentlemen,  is  a  preventive,  a  check,  the 
one   thing   needful.     Now,   Gentlemen,  if  you   think   for   a   mo- 
ment   that    I   consider    that    New    Hampshire    is    any   more    po- 
litically   or  legislatively   corrupt   than   any   other   state   in   this 
Union  you   are  mistaken,  for  I  do  not;    but  I  believe,   Gentle- 
men, that  there  is  need  of  a  preventive,  a  check,  and  a  third 
eye.     Gentlemen,  if  I  depart  from  the  text  just  a  mite  you  will 
pardon   me.     I   ran   across    a   little   boy   once   to   whom   I    said, 
"How  would  you  like  a  third  eye?"     He  replied,  "I  would  like 
one."     Then  I  said,   "If  I  w^ere  to  give  you  one,  where  would 
you   put  it?r     He   answered,   "I   would  put   a   third   eye  in  the 
end  of  my  finger  so  I  could  poke  it  through  the  knot-hole  in 
the  fence  and   see   the   ball  game."     Now  we  have  not   exactly 
a   ball  game   to   look  after,  but  it   may  be   that   some   time  in 
the    future   there    might    be    a   political   game   going   on   behind 
the   legislative    fence    and    a    third    eye   to   poke    through    some 
crevice  in  that  fence  might  be  greatly  to  our  advantage.  Gen- 
tlemen, to  bring  this  right  home, — I  am  earnest  about  this, — so 
to  bring  it  right  home  so  we  can  all  realize  it  I  am  going  to 
tell  you  about  a  friend  of  mine  who  had  a  colt  that  was  broken 
so  he  could   be  driven  without  rein,  bit  or  bridle  with  perfect 
safety,  ana  he  drove  hinoi  this  way  for  years,  but,   Gentlemen, 
what    happened    one    beautiful    Sabbath    afternoon?       He    was 
driving  on  a  strange  road  and  the  unexpected  occurred.     There 
in  the  middle  of  the  highway  w^as  a  roaring,  pawing  bull.     The 
poor  horse  lost  his  head   entirely,  the  man   had  no  check,  no 
rein,  and  the  horse  became  wild,  turned  around  and  ran.     My 
friend  hung  on  to   the   carriage,  the  horse   went  over   a   stone 
wall,  left   them   upon   the  wall,   and   he   kept   on    going.     The 
next  day  my  friend  wrote  me,   saying:    "Davis  what  you   said 
was   true.    The    unexpected   has   happened.    Jerry    got    fright- 
ened, lost  his  head,   ran  away,  hung  us  up  on  a  wall,  hurt  us 
all,    and    pretty    nearly   killed    my    wife.     I    don't   know    where 
Jerry  is,   he   may  be  running   yet  for  all   I  know."     They   did 
not  find  the  horse  for  a  number  of  daj's.     Then  they  learned 
he  had  gone  over  an  embankment  into  the  river  and  drowned 


182    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

himself.     The  man  didn't  have  the  control  that  he  should,  there- 
fore harm  came  to  them  all. 

Just  one  more  point.  Let  us  take  for  instance  the  frightful 
accident  to  the  Titanic.  Ismaj-  said  it  was  safe,  people  thought 
everything  was  all  right,  taut  was  ^t?  Was  it,  Gentlemen? 
When  the  real  crisis  came  there  was  no  check,  there  was  not 
the  control,  there  was  not  the  preventive  of  trouble  that  there 
should  have  been,  and  so  every  one  that  went  down  to  death 
went  because  there  was  no  preventive.  Xow,  Gentlemen, 
though  we  have  sailed  the  seas  in  comparative  safety  for  fifty 
years,  let  me  ask  you,  how  many  of  us  today  would  take  pas- 
sage on  one  of  those  ocean  liners  without  knowing  how  manj' 
lifeboats  she  carried  and  whether  or  not  her  w^atertight  com- 
partments were  in  good  working  order?  Gentlemen,  this  lit- 
tle referendum  amendment  is  a  third  eye,  a  lifeboat,  and  a 
watertight  compartment,  all  rolled  into  one,  for  the  benefit 
of  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  New  Hampshire  now  sailing 
on  this  good  old  ship  of  state.  And  I  am  impatiently  await- 
ing the  opportunity  to  go  on  record  as  voting  "yea,"  and 
I  believe  that  each  and  every  one  who  does  not  do  so  will  be 
grievously  in  error  and  live  to  regret  it. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Lmidaff. — I  shall  confine  my  remarks  entirely 
to  the  practical  side  of  this  question.  I  shall  not  discuss  the 
theory.  I  shall  not  discuss  Switzerland,  Oregon  or  any  othor 
state;    1  will  discuss  the  state   of  New  Hampshire,  and  try  to 

answer  a  question  that  has  been  asked, What  is  the  need  of 

this  legislation  in  this  state  at  this  time?  We  have  been 
asked  j^'hat  bill  has  ever  been  passed  by  our  legislatures  that 
was  a  disgrace  to  the  state  and  which  ought  to  have  been  re- 
pealed. I  will  refer  to  one,  Mr.  Chairman.  There  w^as  a  law 
on  our  statute  books  from  the  time  our  railroads  were  in- 
corporated down  to  1897,  saying  that  no  man  should  ride  upon 
a  pass  except  stockholders  going  to  and  from  stockhcklers' 
meetings  and  directors,  and  persons  engaged  m  the  express 
business  and  mail  business.  The  legislature  of  1897  added  this 
pretty  little  amendment,  "and  other  persons  to  whom  passes 
may  be  issued  by  the  proper  officers."  In  other  words,  ho 
man  shall  ride  upon  a  free  pass  except  a  man  who  has  a  free 
pass.  That  law.  Sir,  was  a  disgrace  to  the  legislature  which 
passed  it.  Do  you  think  it  would  have  passed  by  the  vote  of 
the  people  of  New  Hampshire  if  we  had  had  the  initiative  and 
referendum  at  that  time?  The  gentlemen  who  got  that  bill 
through,  the  interests  that  got  it  through,  composed  of  the  peo- 
ple, who  benefited  by  riding  for  nothing,  and  the  corporation 
which  benefited   by   having   a   cheap  kind    of  influence  to   deal 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  183 

out  would  never  dare  to  go  before  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire with  such  a  proposition.  We  need  it,  not  merely  to 
repeal  laws  which  are  an  injury-  to  the  state,  but  we  need  it 
to  get  bills  which  the  legislature,  session  after  session,  re- 
fuses to  pass. 

When  the  Federal  income  tax  measure  was  up  before  the 
last  legislature  it  passed  the  House  by  practically  a  unanimous 
vote.  When  it  went  to  the  Senate  a  careful  canvass  was  made. 
We  had  a  small  majority  in  its  favor.  It  went  to  a  committee 
of  three  men,  two  of  whom  were  opposed  to  it,  and  they  held 
it  in  that  committee  until  they  brought  pressure  enough  to 
bear  upon  everj-  man  in  that  Senate  to  kill  it.  If  the  people 
could  have  had  a  chance  to  vote  on  it,  it  would  have  been  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  twenty  to  one  in  favor.  There  was  another  bill 
providing  for  the  election  of  the  United  States  senator  by  the 
people,  a  bill  demanded  by  the  Democratic  platform,  I  be- 
lieve demanded  by  the  people  almost  unanimously.  It  passed 
this  House.  It  went  into  the  Senate  and  there  thirteen  men 
put  a  veto  upon  the  wishes  and  the  will  and  the  decisions  of 
the  majority  of  this  House,  and  the  majority  of  this  whole 
state.  Now  this  sort  of  thing  happened  over  and  over  again. 
I  do  not  believe  there  has  been  a  legislature  in  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  for  twenty-five  years  where  good  measures 
which  were  demanded  by  the  people  and  which  the  people 
would  have  passed  have  not  been  killed  by  the  special  inter- 
est that  were  opposed  to  them.  Now  we  want  a  chance  when 
our  representatives,  our  delegates,  the  men  who  use  the  power 
to  pass  laws,  w^hich  belongs  to  the  people,  use  it  against  our 
interest,  we  want  a  right  to  exercise  that  power  direcrly 
ourselves;  not  merely  turn  off  that  agent  and  get  a  new  one. 
The  state,  Mr,  Chairman,  is  nothing  but  a  corporation,  an 
organization.  How  long  do  you  think  any  private  "Hiisiness 
corporation  would  prosper,  how  long  do  you  think  thi'  ifi- 
terests  of  the  stockholders  ,would  prosper  if  they  had  abso- 
lutely no  power  directly  to  do  a  thing,  but  only  the  power  to 
hire  agents  for  two  years,  be  bound  by  their  acts,  and  at  the 
end  of  the  two  years  either  hire  them  over  or  hire  another 
agent.  The  power  of  the  legislature  comes  from  the  people, 
and  it  is  really  a  strange  thing  that  the  people  haven't  had  the 
right  to  exercise  directly  the  power  which  they  had  the  right 
to  delegate. 

Now  one  more  suggestion.  It  has  been  said  the  people  of 
the  state  do  not  want  it.  I  believe  they  do.  There  are  some 
of  you  gentlemen  who  believe  they  do  not.  There  is  one  way 
to  settle  that  question, — put  it  up  to  the  people,  and  let  them 


184    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

vote  upon  it  themselves.  If  the}-  turn  it  down,  I  will  be  sat- 
isfied; and,  if  they  adopt  it,  you  ought  to  be  satisfied.  We  are 
told  ihqt  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  are  not  qualified  to 
pass  on  these  legislative  matters.  It  needs  an  expert.  Well 
now,  your  representative  bodies  are  no  more  experts  than 
the  rest  of  you;  there  are  no  experts  of  legislation,  and  the 
bills  which  would  go  before  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  can  be  decided  by  them  exactly  as  intelligently  and 
honestly  as  they  can  by  3'ou  or  any  other  body  of  men.  Does 
it  need  an  expert's  trained  mind  to  say  that  the  law  which 
says  no  person  shall  ride  upon  passes  except  people  who  have 
passes  is  foolish?  Do  you  need  trained  minds  to  decide  that? 
Do  you  need  trained,  minds  to  say  whether  people  ought  to 
have  a  right  to  elect  their  own  senators  directly?  These 
legislative  matters  can  be  decided  by  the  intelligence  of  the 
average  people,  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  just 
as  well,  and  better,  in  some  ways,  than  they  can  be  by  the 
legislature.  You  can  log-roll  in  the  legislature,  you  can  bring 
pressure  to  bear,  you  can  trade,  but  you  cannot  log-roll  the 
whole  state  of  New  Hampshire.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  ro 
do  it.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope  that  this  measure  will  pass.  I 
hoped  it  might  have  passed  in  its  original  form.  Let  me  refer 
to  that  pass  law  again.  It  got  on  to  the  statute  books  and  it 
took  twelve  years  of  agitation  to  get  it  off.  Twelve  years! 
It  stayed  there  from  1897  to  1909,  although  there  wasn't  a 
single  year  in  which  the  people  wouldn't  have  voted  to  strike 
it  off  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  In  order  to  get  legisla- 
tion enacted  it  requires  three  things,  the  House,  the  Senate, 
and  the  Governor;  and  any  private  interest  that  is  opposed  to 
anj'  law  can  block  it  bj^  getting  control  of  just  one  cog  in  the 
legislative  machine,  generally  the  Senate.  I  believe  this  reso- 
lution would  be  to  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  I  believe  thej-  will  adopt  it. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — This  matter,  gentlemen,  is  one  on 
which  I  have  spent  a  large  amount  of  thought.  It  raises  the 
question  of  whether  or  not  we  are  ready  to  change  our  pres- 
ent form  of  government,  and  it  behooves  us  well  lo  pause  and 
think  before  taking  any  radical  step  in  this  line. 

It  sometimes  amuses  me  as  I  hear  men  like  my  Brother 
Stevens,  who  has  just  spoken,  speak  of  the  initiative  and  ref- 
erendum as  though  they  were  modern  contrivances,  and  as 
though  our  forefathers  had  never  heard  anything  about  them 
and  were  not  familiar  with  them  at  the  time  they  drafted  our 
Constitution.  But  history  tells  us  that  they  are  very  old  con- 
trivances;   indeed,    as    old    as    democratic    government.        Pure 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  185 

democracy  has  been  demonstrated  over  and  over  again  to  be 
a  failure,  and  this  our  forefathers  well  knew  at  the  time  they 
framed  our  Federal  Constitution.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  there 
never  were  men  of  sounder  judgment  on  matters  surround- 
ing the  formation  of  our  Federal  Constitution.  They  had  be- 
fore them  the  history  of  European  countries;  they  had  seen 
the  pure  democracy  both  in  Greece  and  in  Rome.  They  had 
seen  pure  democracy  followed  by  emperors;  they  had  learned 
that  there  was  no  tyrant  worse  than  the  people  themselves 
when  aroused,  and  they  realized,  when  the}'  came  to  make  a 
Constitution  which  was  to  be  the  foundation  of  a  great  gov- 
ernment, that  it  must  contain  checks  and  balances  to  the  end 
that  the  sober  judgment  of  the  people  should  be  regarded  in- 
stead of  a  judgment  that  was  the  product  of  the  heated  talk 
of  an  aroused  populace.  That  our  Federal  Constitution  is  the 
result  of  great  deliberation  I  do  not  need  to  demonstrate,  nor 
need  I  quote  to  show  that  it  has  been  approved  by  the  fore- 
most statesmen  of  the  last  century. 

Our  forefathers  adopted  a  representative  form  of  govern- 
ment, as  jou  know,  composed  of  a  legislative  department,  a 
judicial  department,  and  an  executive  department.  In  the 
legislative  department  we  have  two  branches,  the  House  and 
the  Senate.  The  Senate  is  supposed  to  be  composed  of  a  lit- 
tle choicer  selection  of  men  than  is  required  for  membership 
in  the  House,  men  who  have  had  experience  in  legislative  af- 
fairs. When  a  measure  passes  the  House  it  goes  to  the  Senate, 
where  it  can  again  be  thrashed  out.  Thus  we  have  a  check  on 
the  action  of  the  House.  Beyond  the  Senate  it  meets  the  Gov- 
ernor. The  Governor  looks  over  the  legislation  that  has 
passed  the  House  and  Senate,  and,  if  it  seems  best  to  him  that 
it  should  not  become  law,  affixes  his  veto.  Talk  about  checks! 
This  government  was  framed  with  the  very  idea  of  providing 
checks.  The  gentleman  who  spoke,  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Davis, 
called  the  proposed  measure  a  check  in  the  hands  of  the 
people.  The  idea  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  being 
called  a  check!  His  illustrations  could  better  be  used  by  the 
opposition  than  by  the  side  he  represents.  Of  course  a  horse 
with  neither  check  nor  rein  is  liable  to  run  away  sometimes, 
and  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  many  horses  w^hich  run  away 
in  spite  of  checks  and  strong  harnesses.  I  am  unable  to  see 
his  point.  His  little  lantern  on  the  finger  (his  finger)  may  be 
the  Senate  or  the  Governor  "poking  through  the  fence"  more 
truly  than  the  great  mass  of  voters  acting  upon  half  truths 
and   misinformation. 

The  gentlemen  who  introduce  this  measure  are  not  novices; 
they    are    not    fellows   who   were   born   yesterday,    not    by    any 


186    JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

manner  nor  means.  They  have  drawn  a  resolution  jreally  com- 
posed of  two  parts.  One  is  a  device  for  making  laws,  and  the 
other  for  amending-  the  Constitution.  They  intended  when 
they  drew  it  that  it  would  pass,  unchallenged,  as  one  propo- 
sition. Mr.  Stevens  said  he  hoped  it  would.  They  "tried  it 
on"  and  when  they  saw  it  was  going  hard,  got  cold  feet  and 
asked  permission  to  withdraw  the  second  feature.  They  say 
it  calls  for  the  referendum  only,  and  expressly  disclaim  that 
it  embraces  the  initiative  feature.  A  careful  examination  of 
the  resolution  reveals  the  fact  that  the  initiative  has  been 
covered,  for  on  page  4  it  reads:  "In  case  an  act  or  resolve 
proposed  in  the  General  Court  fails  to  be  passed  by  that  Gen- 
eral Court,  then  on  petition  of  the  number  of  voters  last  above 
stated,  and  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State  not  less  than 
four  months  previous  to  the  next  ensuing  state  election,  said 
act  or  resolve  in  its  original  form  or  in  such  amended  form 
proposed  in  the  General  Court  as  may  be  petitioned  for  by 
such  petitioners  shall  be  submitted  to  the  voters  at  the  next 
ensuing  state  election."  Now  what  do  w^e  need  to  do  if  we 
desire  to  start  legislation  by  this  initiative  plan?  We  put  a 
bill  into  the  legislature,  allow  it  to  be  defeated,  then  put  it 
up  to  the  people  by  petition.  Any  old  scheme  when  it  has 
been  disapproved  by  the  legislature  is  in  order  for  the  bal- 
lot, if  endorsed  by  the  required  number  of  voters.  So  yon 
see  they  have  incorporated  the  initiative  indirect!}'  in  this 
resolution,  as  well  as  the  referendum.  This  is  the  beginning. 
Gentlemen.  We  are  told  that  this  is  just  the  referendum;  that 
no  attempt  has  been  made  to  embrace  the  initiative;  that  no- 
body can  object  to  the  referendum  only,  and  yet  we  can  see 
what  the  plan  really  covers.  This  is  the  entering  wedge.  11 
successful  here  something  else  will  be  attempted,  and  New 
Hampshire  must  make  her  stand  right  here  or  go  before 
socialism  to  the  very  limit.  They  do  not  attempt  the  recall 
at  this  time,  but  they  are  ready  when  the  opportunity  is  ripe 
to  advance  this  feature.  It  will  be  preceded  by  the  usual  cry, 
"All  the  people  want  it."  "Will  you  not  trust  the  people?" 
Thus  they  hope  to  embarrass  us  in  our  reply  and  to  prejudice  us 
in  the  minds  of  the  ignorant  even  before  we  have  had  a  chance 
to  explain.  The  whole  scheme  is  vicious  unless  we  are  ready 
to  change  our  present  form  of  government.  We  have  rested 
secure  as  a  state  for  more  than  one  hundred  j-ears.  Do  we 
want  to  change?  We  have  probably  made  a  few  mistakes  in 
New  Hampshire,  but  they  have  pointed  to  but  two  in  a 
period  of  one  hundred  years.  Don't  you  think  that  if  we  miss 
fire    only    twice    in    the    course    of    one   hundred    years    it    is    a 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  187 

pretty  good  record?  They  point  to  the  old  pass  laws  and 
saj-^  they  were  bad,  and  I  dare  say  they  are  correct  in  this. 
The  gentleman  said  the  people  would  have  repealed  these 
years  ago  if  they  had  only  had  a  chance.  How  does  he  know 
but  what  the  people  thought  they  were  a  pretty  good  thing? 
I  can  remember  when  the  people  thought  the  pass  system 
was  a  most  excellent  arrangement.  There  was  a  time  when 
we  paid  our  bills  and  had  a  little  money  to  spare,  but  it  now 
looks  as  though  we  were  not  going  to  have  monej-^  much 
longer.  I  am  not  defenaing  free  passes,  Gentlemen,  but  I 
have  simply  never  taken  any  interest  in  the  subject.  When 
I  was  in  the  legislature,  in  common  with  the  rest,  I  had  a  free 
pass,  and,  if  the  Boston  &  Maine  had  ever  insinuated  that  I 
must  stand  up  and  be  counted  for  them,  we  would  have  come 
to  blows.  But  all  this  is  a  matter  of  history.  The  free  pass 
was  tolerated  by  the  old  school  of  politicians,  who  thought, 
I  presume,  they  were  making  friends  by  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  says,  most  un- 
warrantably, as  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire desire  to  have  the  United  States  senators  elected  by  the 
people  instead  of  by  the  legislature.  He  sajs  the  people  all 
want  the  change.  How  does  he  know?  It  was  my  privilege  to 
go  before  the  committee  of  the  House  and  Senate  in  1911  and 
speak  against  it.  I  spoke  for  myself  and  for  many  others 
who  thought  as  I  did.  I  don't  believe,  just  as  strongly  as  Mr. 
Ste-vens  does  believe,  that  the  people  desire  this  change.  I  feel 
that  we  still  have  in  our  state  a  large  number  of  people  who  be- 
lieve that  the  fathers  were  wise  in  the  manner  they  selected 
for  choosing  United  States  senators,  and,  if  that  matter  were 
in  order  for  discussion  at  the  present  time,  there  are  many 
things  I  would  like  to  say.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  we  don't  pro- 
pose to  let  the  subject  go  by  default  when  it  does  come  before 
the  people,  so  my  Brother  Stevens  cannot  mention  it  as  some- 
thing which  shows  how  the  people  have  been  robbed.  So  I 
conclude  that  the  history  of  the  free  pass  is  no  argument, 
and  the  manner  of  electing  United  States  senators  cuts  no 
figure  in  the  present  discussion.  The  bold  assertions  made 
by  Mr.  Stevens  are  supposed  to  draw  some  glory  to  the  scheme 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  deeply  interested  in  this  matter,  and  I 
want  to  have  New  Hampshire  take  a  stand  that  is  compatible 
with  the  common,  solid  sense  of  the  past  intellect  in  our  state. 
We  are  assembled  here  as  a  Constitutional  Convention  made 
up  of  delegates  from  all  over  the  state,  and  we  have  amc^g 
our  number  those  who  have  good,  clear,  strong  intellects,  and 


188    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

I  crave  their  best  judgment  on  this  occasion.  Let  us  not  give 
hot-headed,  impulsive  judgment,  whittled  into  shape  by  think- 
ing that  some  of  our  rights  in  the  past  have  been  taken  from 
us,  but  let  us,  rather,  realize  that  we  are  citizens  of  New 
Hampshire  who  have  all  had  our  rights  under  the  law;  who 
have  had  in  our  halls  of  legislation  illustrious  men,  as  gov- 
ernors fine  types  of  manhood,  and  as  judges  men  whose  in- 
tegrity has  never  seriously  been  questioned. 

In  this  manner  then  let  us  proceed,  not  seeking  some  new 
device,  not  trying  to  catch  on  to  some  new  fashion,  not  look- 
ing for  some  sort  of  change,  but  attending  to  our  duties  in 
a  clean,  manly,  straightforward  manner,  proud  of  our  his- 
tory which  exhorts  such  a  course. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsflcld. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  for  the  benefit  of  those  members  who  do  not  seem 
to  know  that  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  operative  any- 
where else  than  in  Switzerland,  I  will  read  you  an  extract 
showing   w^here   it   is   in   operation  here   in   the   United   States. 

"The  first  state  to  vote  upon  the  initiative  and  referendum 
was  South  Dakota  in  1897.  Jackpot  senators  and  partners  in 
legal  graft  denounced  the  fad  and  predicted  its  repudiation 
at  the   polls.     The  vote   stood  23,000  for  and   16,000  against  it. 

"The  second  time  the  idea  was  submitted  to  an  American 
electorate  was  in  Oregon  in  1902.  There  were  the  same  tear- 
ful appeals  to  the  ways  of  the  fathers,  the  same  gnashing  of 
political  teeth.  But  the  people  smiled  and  calmly  voted  the 
new   heresy  into  their  Constitution  by  a  majority   of   10   to   1. 

"Nevada  came  next  in  1904.  The  'interests'  snarled  as  usual 
and  with  the  same  result.  It  was  a  6  to  1  majority  for  the 
new  doctrine. 

"The  fourth  state  was  Montana,  in  1906.  The  returns  showed 
that  there  were  36,374  voters  who  were  tired  of  representatives 
that  did  not  represent.  There  were  6,616  meek  persons  who 
thought  that  they  had  better  be  ruled   by  the  legislature. 

"Oklahoma,  in  1907,  was  the  fifth  state  to  raise  the  issue. 
Immediately  a  chorus  went  up  against  putting  the  initiative 
and  referendum  in  the  Constitution.  'It  will  drag  the  Con- 
stitution down  to  defeat,'  they  said.  'Congress  will  reject  it.* 
'The  President  will  not  sanction  it.'  The  initiative  and  ref- 
erendum were  written  into  the  new  charter,  which  was  adopted 
by  a  majority  of  over  100,000. 

"After  five  unbroken  victories  the  idea  moved  East.  Maine 
was  the  next  battleground.  In  September  of  1908  the  question 
was  submitted  there.  On  the  Saturday  before  election  glaring 
advertisements  and  paid  editorials  were  run  in  the  newspapers 


Wednesday,  June  12,  19.12.  189 

all  over  the  state,  telling  what  a  calamity  it  would  be  to 
adopt  the  initiative  and  referendum.  It  was  a  clever  stroke, 
and  it  secured  23,712  votes  against  the  proposition.  But 
there  were  .51,991  votes  for  it. 

"Six  victories  and  no  defeat  was  the  record.  Then  in  No- 
vember of  this  same  year  the  popularity  of  the  idea  was  tested 
in  Missouri.  There  were  eight  constitutional  amendments  sub- 
mitted. Only  two  of  them  carried.  One  was  a  good  roads 
measure,  which  had  a  majority  of  20,000.  The  other  was  the 
initiative  and  referendum,  which  had  a  majority  of  31,000. 

"In  1910  two  more  states  were  added  to  the  list, — Arkansas, 
by  a  vote  of  91,000  to  39,000,  and  Colorado,  by  a  vote  of  89,- 
000  to  28,000." 

Since  then  the  voters  of  Arizona  and  California  have  adopted 
the  initiative  and  referendum  by  large  majorities;  and,  in  ad- 
dition to  these,  seven  other  states  will  have  the  question  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters  during  this  year,  and  in  this  connection  I 
will  say  that  in  everj^  state  where  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum amendments  have  been  submitted  to  the  people  thus 
far  they  have   been  adopted. 

In  Maine,  where  the  amendment  was  adopted  in  1908,  tne 
people  last  year  for  the  first  time  used  the  initiative.  They 
wanted  a  direct  primary  law  which  the  legislature  had  re- 
fused to  enact,  so  they  got  up  initiative  petitions  which  were 
signed  by  over  15,000  voters,  asking  that  a  direct  primary 
measure  be  submitted  to  the  people  to  be  voted  upon  and  the 
result  was  that  the  voters  adopted  it  by  a  large  majority,  and 
they  now  have  the  direct  primary,  and  it  will  be  used  for  the 
first  time  there  within  a  few  days. 

So  you  see  that  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  not  entirely 
a  foreign  or  "Wild  Western"  scheme,  but  is  working  admir- 
ably right  here  in  Xew  England. 

I  will  read  what  a  few  noted  men  say  of  it  in  the  states 
where  it  has  been  adopted. 

Robert  L.  Owen,  United  States  senator  from  Oklahoma,  says: 
"The  initiative  and  referendum  is  the  soul  of  the  democracy, 
the  means  by  which  majority  rule  can  be  established  over  a 
minority  using  machine  politics  and  corrupt  practices.  By 
the  initiative  the  people  can  get  any  law  they  do  want;  and 
by  the  referendum  veto  any  law  they  do  not  want.  You  will 
find  all  the  special  interests  and  perhaps  a  few  good  men  mis- 
led and  all  the  crooks  in  the  state  ojiposed  to  the  initiative 
and  referendum." 

William  D.  Stephens,  representative  in  Congress  from  Cal- 
ifornia,  saj's:    "In   the   city   of  Los    Angeles    we    have   had   the 


190    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the  recall  for  almost  ten  years, 
and  each  succeeding-  election  has  shown  that  the  people  of 
my  city  are  more  strongly  in  favor  of  all  of  these  proposi- 
tions than  they  were  at  the  previous  election."' 

Herbert  C.  Libby,  president  Maine  Keferendum  League:  "It 
is  an  historical  fact  that  no  body  of  people  once  adopting  the 
principle  of  direct  legislation,  as  embodied  in  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  has  ever  cast  it  aside,  and  this  fact  is  ex- 
tremely suggestive  and  prophetic  in  so  far  as  the  state  of 
Maine  is  concerned.  Now  that  the  principle  of  direct  legisla- 
tion has  been  adopted  there  is  no  likelihood  whatever  that 
the  people  of  this  state  will  ever  vote  it  out  of  the  Consti- 
tution. It  has  come  to  stay.  The  people  are  coming  to  like 
the  idea  that  they  have  power  of  a  positive  kind  over  the  leg- 
islature, and  they  are  already  using  that  power." 

Now  if  this  referendum  amendment  is  adopted,  what  changes 
will  it  make  in  our  present  system  of  legislation?  At  the 
present  time  the  most  of  the  acts  passed  by  our  legislature 
take  effect  immediately.  If  we  adopt  the  referendum,  as  it 
is  called,  none  of  the  acts  (except  appropriation  bills  and 
laws  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public 
peace,  health  and  safety)  take  effect  until  ninety  days  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  session.  If  during  these  ninety  days 
any  voter  discovers  that  any  act  or  any  section,  item  or  part 
of  any  act  is  objectionable,  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  copy  the 
act  or  the  part  of  the  same  to  which  he  objects,  and  state 
that  the  undersigned  protests  against  the  same,  then  sign  it 
and  get  as  many  of  his  neighbors  to  sign  it  as  he  chooses  to, 
and  then  send  it  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  If  4,000  of  the 
voters  enter  their  protest  against  any  act,  or  part  of  any  act, 
during  the  said  ninety  days,  then  that  act,  or  part,  protested 
against  does  not  become  a  law,  but  is  held  up  until  the  next 
general  election.  Two  months  before  the  general  election  the 
Secretary  of  State  will  have  a  leaflet  printed  containing  the 
proposed  legislation  with  the  best  argument  that  its  friends 
care  to  make  for  it,  also  the  best  argument  that  its  op- 
ponents care  to  make  against  it.  Thus  the  voter  has  the  pro- 
posed law,  together  with  the  arguments  for  and  against  the 
measure,  right  before  him,  and  can  form  his  opinion,  go  to  the 
polls  and  vote  "yes"  if  he  favors  the  measure,  or  "no"  if  he 
opposes  it,  voting  in  the  same  manner  that  he  would  vote  on 
a  proposed   amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

Legislatures  sometimes  refuse  to  pass  desirable  laws.  The 
people  in  this  case  have  no  redress  except  to  wait  and  try 
to  elect  a  legislature  that  will  yield  to  public  opinion.  To 
remedy   this  we   propose   the   following: 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  191 

"In  case  an  act  or  resolve  proposed  in  the  General  Court 
fails  to  be  passed  by  that  General  Court,  then  on  petition  of 
the  number  of  voters  last  above  stated,  and  filed  with  the 
Secretary  of  State  not  less  than  four  months  previous  to  the 
next  ensuing-  election,  said  act  or  resolve  in  its  original  form 
or  in  such  amended  form  proposed  in  the  General  Court  as 
may  be  petitioned  for  by  such  petitioners  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  voters  at  the  next  ensuing  state  election,  and  shall  take 
effect  if  a  majoritj^  of  the  votes  cast  thereon  is  in  the  af- 
firmative; otherwise  it  shall  not  take  effect.  If  accepted  by 
the  voters,  such  measure  shall  become  law  in  thirty  days  after 
the  said  state  election." 

This  will  do  away  with  the  spectacle  of  seeing  our  House 
of  Representatives,  consisting  of  about  four  hundred  mem- 
bers, pass  measures  practically  unanimously,  only  to  have  those 
same  measures  held  up  and  defeated  by  a  dozen  or  more  men 
in  the  Senate. 

I  have  had  a  little  experience  with  legislation  of  this  kind 
myself,  for  at  the  last  session  of  our  legislature  Mr.  Upton 
and  mj'self  introduced  bills  "To  prohibit  the  transmission  of 
electric  power  beyond  the  confines  of  the  state,"  when  gen- 
erated by  water  power  within  the  state.  These  bills  meant 
more  to  the  future  welfare  of  the  state  than  any  law  that 
has  been  passed  for  years,  because  if  we  can  only  retain  our 
water  power  in  the  state,  New  Hampshire  is  destined  to  be- 
come the  wealthiest  state  in  the  Union.  The  average  citizen, 
who  has  made  no  study  in  regard  to  the  water  powers  of  the 
state,  has  no  conception  of  the  vast  amount  of  wealth  which 
they  contain.  It  is  said  that  the  horse  power  of  the  water 
powers  of  this  state  is  more  than  that  of  any  available  equal 
area  anywhere  else  in  the  civilized  world,  for  the  western 
boundary  of  our  state  is  the  west  bank  of  the  Connecticut. 
This  river,  with  its  vast  water  powers  added  to  the  water 
power  of  our  other  rivers  and  streams,  both  developed  and 
undeveloped,  affords  a  stupendous  amount  of  water  power 
worth  millions  of  dollars  and  is  constantly  becoming  more 
valuable  as  the  knowledge  of  electricity  and  its  transmission 
increases. 

Mr.  Wa^on  of  Nashua. — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  I  don't 
know  anything  about  the  water  powers,  or  what  that  has 
to  do   with   the    initiative   and   referendum. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  I  will  show  I 
was  not  out  of  order.  I  was  only  showing  what  became  of 
this  bill. 


192      Journal  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua.— I  call  for  a  ruling-,  if  the  gentleman 
persists. 

The  Chairma  n.-^The  gentleman  will  proceed,  bearing  in 
mind  the  subject  matter.  I  think  I  will  not  rule  he  is  out  of 
order  as  j-et. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — I  was  only  going  to  show  an  instance 
of  where  the  referendum  would  have  been  of  much  importance. 
I  will  simply  say  that  it  is  a  matter  of  record.  You  can  see 
what  became  of  this  bill.  Here  is  the  Senate  amendment.  In 
the  Senate  it  was  simply  turned  down  and  certain  parts  of  it 
cut  out.     Well,   enough  for   that. 

At  the  annual  session  of  our  State  Grange  last  December  it 
became  my  dutj',  as  chairman  of  the  committee  on  resolu- 
tions, to  present  to  the  meeting  a  series  of  resolutions. 
Among  these  resolutions  was  one  favoring  the  initiative  and 
referendum,  which  w^as  adopted  without  a  word  of  dissension. 
It  was  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  That  we,  the  members  of  the  New  Hampshire  State 
Grange,  in  thirty-eighth  annual  session  assembled,  hereby  urge 
the  members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1912  to  sub- 
mit to  the  voters  of  New  Hampshire  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment embodying  the  principles  of  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
that  the  sense  of  the  voters  maj^  be  taken  thereon." 

This  resolution  was  passed  without  a  word  of  discussion, 
although  there  were  a  thousand  or  more  members  of  the 
Grange  present  at  that  time. 

Our  worthy  master  of  the  State  Grange  w^as  so  fearful  that 
they  did  not  fully  understand  the  matter  that,  the  next  day, 
he  had  this  resolution  reconsidered  and  referred  to  the  sub- 
ordinate granges,  as  I  will  read  from  the  records: 

"State  Master  Pattee  moved  and  it  was  voted  that  the  section 
or  resolution  in  the  report  dealing  with  the  initiative  and 
referendum  be  referred  to  the  subordinate  Granges,  with  in- 
structions to  act  thereon,  and  that  the  policy  of  the  State 
Grange,  in  reference  thereto,  be  determined  by  the  action  taken 
in  the  subordinate  Granges." 

The  report  of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  as  amended,  was 
adopted,  thus  putting  into  practice  the  very  principle  of  ref- 
erendum. I  have  just  received  a  letter  from  the  secretary  of 
the  State  Grange,  saying  that  the  vote  of  the  Subordinate 
Granges  heard  from  throughout  the  state  was  over  three  to 
one  in  favor  of  the  measure.  The  executive  committee  of  the 
State  Grange  met  in  this  city  last  Friday  and  endorsed  the 
nction  of  the  Subordinate  Granges,  and  requested  the  legisla- 
tive committee  to  work  for  the  initiative  and  referendum. 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  193 

The  initiative  and  referendum  is  sometimes  called  progres- 
sive legislation,  but,  in  fact,  here  in  New  Hampshire  it  is 
more  than  a  centurj^  and  a  quarter  old,  for  we  have  had  com- 
pulsorj'  referendum  on  all  constitutional  amendments  for  the 
past  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  years.  This  Convention  is 
an  initiative  and  referendum  body.  The  people  took  the  initi- 
ative and  voted  to  call  a  Convention,  and  every  amendment 
which  we  adopt  here  has  the  referendum  attached  to  it,  and 
must  be  referred  to  and  voted  upon  by  the  people  who  say 
whether  it  shall  or  shall  not  become  a  part  of  our  State  Con- 
stitution. 

The  men  who  framed  our  Constitution  were  Progressives  of 
the  most  radical  type  and  were  more  than  fifty  years  ahead  of 
the  times  in  which  they  lived,  as  shown  by  no  amendments 
being  made  to  the  Constitution  for  sixty  years  after  its 
adoption.  If,  instead  of  being  such  thorough  Progressives, 
they  had  been  as  conservative  and  reactionary  as  some  men 
with  whom  I  have  talked  since  this  Convention  opened,  we 
should  today  be  under  British  rule  and  paying  tribute  to  the 
throne   of  England. 

Mr.  FillsMry  of  LorKtooidetTy. — It  isn't  my  purpose  in  making 
this  motion  to  stifle  anj'  debate,  but  we  have  debated  this 
question  pretty  fulh%  it  seems  to  me.  We  spent  all  day  yes- 
terday on  a  question  onlj'  yet  partially  discussed.  We  have 
spent  fifteen  thousand  dollars  or  more  of  the  twent^'^-five  thou- 
sand provided.  We  have  already  introduced  fifty-seven  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution,  and  if  we  do  not  get  a  vote  pretty 
soon  we  shall  be  here  next  fall,  and  I  think  we  should  begin 
to  do  business. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry  moved  that  the  Committee 
proceed  to  vote. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Does  the  gentleman  desire  to  press 
his   motion   at    this   time? 

Mr.  Pillsbnry  of  Londonderry  withdrew  his  motion. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concm'd. — It  would  be  presumption  on  my  part 
to  say  that  I  did  not  propose  to  waste  time.  I  hardly  think 
the  gentleman  realized  the  import  of  his  remarks. 

Mr.  PUlsMry  of  Londonderry. — I  will  say  for  the  information 
of  the  gentleman  that  I  supposed  we  were  to  have  a  fair 
amount  of  discussion  on  these  questions.  I  do  not  believe 
we  can  fully  discuss  fifty-seven  questions  and  allow  a  day   on 


194    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

each  question,  on  twenty-five  thousand  dollars,  and  when  the 
$3.00  a  day  has  expired  it  will  be  more  inconvenient  for  some 
of  us  to  come,  1  presume.  We  are  sent  here  to  use,  it  seems 
to  me,  a  fair  amount  pf  time  on  each  question,  but  we  have 
only  discussed  two  this  week  and  they  are  not  yet  fully  dis- 
cussed, and  it  is  Wednesday,  nearly  Wednesday  night;  and  if 
we  do  not  beg-in  to  vote,  or  limit  the  time  of  discussion  to 
five  minutes  under  the  five-minute  rule  which  previous  Con- 
ventions have  adopted,  we  won't  get  through  the  business  of 
this  Convention.  I  will  withdraw  my  remarks  and  my  mo- 
tion for  the  benefit  of  the  gentleman  that  he  may  discuss  this 
question,  but  I  think  we  should  have  a  definite  time  when  we 
are  going  to  do  business. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  Chairman 

Mr.  Morse  of  Neiomarket. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  for  an  in- 
quiry. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  yield  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Netamarket. — Wouldn't  it  be  more  fair  to  all  par- 
ties that  we  vote  on  this  as  some  special  order,  say  tomorrow 
at  12  o'clock?  That  will  give  all  of  those  who  are  for  and 
against  the  proposed  amendment  an  opportunity  to  be  here, 
and   some   are  absent. 

Mr.  W<ison  of  Kashua. — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. The  gentleman  is  discussing  something  that  is  not  be- 
fore the  Convention. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket. — I  am  simply  making  an  inquiry,  and 
the  gentleman  from   Concord  has  yielded. 

The  Chairman. — The  debate  will  proceed  unless  by  other  ac- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Committee.  The  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  has  the   fioor. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — Mr.   Chairman 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  yield. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whi-tcher  of  Haverhill,  that  the  Com- 
mittee proceed  *to  vote  on  the  resolution  at  4  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon. 

Question  being  on  the  motion, — 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — With  regard  to  that  time,  there  are 
quite  a  number  of  gentlemen,  members  of  the  Convention, 
who  will  be  unable  to  be  here  at  4  o'clock,  being  required  to 
take  a  train  at  3.40  o'clock. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey,  that  the  motion  of 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  195 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  be  amended  by  making  the  time 
at  12  o'clock,  Thursday,  June  13, 

Question  being  on  the  amendment, — 

Mr.  Stone  of  Amloier. — Mr.  Chairman,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Londonderry  says,  we  have  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  in  the 
discussion  of  this  question.  If  the  gentlemen  will  look  about 
this  Convention,  it  seems  to  me  it  will  appear  to  them  that 
thefre  are  as  many  delegates  in  their  seats  today  as  at  any  time 
since  the  Convention  assembled,  and  it  seems  to  me  today  is 
the  time  to  settle  this  and  then  go  on  to  further  business. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  withdrew  the  motion  to  amend. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher, — 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  moved  that  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  be  amended  so  that  the  vote  be  taken 
immediately. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — This  morning  I  asked  the  gentleman 
from  Jaffrey,  who  is  in  charge  of  this  resolution,  if  he  would 
agree  upon  a  time  upon  which  to  take  the  vote,  and  suggested 
the  hour  of  3  o'clock.  I  proposed  then  to  adapt  myself  to  the 
time  consumed  here.  I  have  yielded  to  others,  and  I  have  but 
little  to  say  upon  this  question,  but  I  do  think  that  the  ac- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Jaffrey  is  certainly  unfair  after 
the  treatment  that  I  gave  him  this  morning. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — In  support  of  my  motion  I  wash  to 
say  just  a  word.  I  heartily  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Londonderry,  Mr.  Pillsbury,  that  we  want  to  get  down  to 
business.  We  are  here  for  business,  and  I  do  not  understand 
that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  members,  the  delegates 
to  this  Convention,  to  go  home  every  night.  Some  of  us  are 
here  and  are  staying  here  during  the  week  to  do  the  business 
of  the  Convention.  It  seems  to  me  we  can  vote  at  4  o'clock 
this  afternoon.  What  little  more  needs  to  be  said  upon  the 
question  can  be  said  before  that  time,  and  we  can  vote  and 
get  it  out  of  the  way  and  proceed  to  other  business. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  asked  that  unanimous  consent  be 
granted  to  Mr.  Lyfordl  of  Concord  to  speak  upon  the  subject 
before  the  vote  should  be  taken. 


196      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket  objected  'to  unanimous  consent. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket. — You  cannot  have  unanimous  con- 
sent when  any  member  of  this  body  objects,  and  I  object. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  tell  j'ou  why  I  object  if  you  wish 
to  know,  and  if  this  Committee  wishes  to  know.  The  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  wishes  to  speak  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman,  wishes  to  speak,  and  I  see 
no  reason  why  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford, 
should  monopolize  all  the  time  and  these  other  gentlemen 'not 
be  heard.  Now  if  the  gentleman  from  Concord  does  not  wish 
to  speak  and  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  does  not  wish  to 
speak,  I  will  withdraw  my  objection. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaf- 
frey  to  proceed  to  vote  immediately, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro,  that  the  amend- 
ment of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey,  to  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Whi^tcher  of  Haverhill,  be  amended  by  making  the  time  to 
vote,  Thursday,  June  13,  at  12  o'clock. 

Question  being  on  the  'amendment  of  Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfe- 
boro to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaifrey, — 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. — I  hope  that  the  Committee  will  grant 
me  two  or  three  minutes  to  be  heard.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gen- 
tlemen, this  is  one  of  the  most  important  questions  to  come 
before  this  Convention  at  this  session.  It  is  a  matter  of  great 
importance  that  this  be  discussed  pro  and  con  by  every  gentle- 
man who  wishes  to  be  heard.  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  this 
amendment.  The  gentlemen  who  want  to  talk  here,  I  presume, 
are  opposed  to  the  amendment.  Therefore,  in  all  fairness  to 
every  man  present,  and  to  our  constituents  up  and  down  the 
length  and  breadth  of  New  Hampshire,  I  demand  in  their  name 
a  chance  to  be  heard  and  everyone  to  be  heard.  Upon  that 
question.  Gentlemen,  can  there  be  any  opposition — a  fair  dis- 
cussion of  the  greatest  question  that  has  ever  been  before  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket  called  for  a  division. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket  withdirew  his  call  for  a  division. 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  19T 

Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin  renewed  the  call  for  a  division. 

The  chairman  designated  Mr.  Leighton  of  Newfields,  teller 
for  Division  No.  1;  Mr.  Hohhs  of  Pelham,  for  Division  No.  2; 
Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury,  for  Division  No.  3;  Mr.  Young  of  Man- 
chester, for  Division  No.  4;  and  Mr.  Flint  of  Concord,  for 
Division  No.  5. 

Division  being  had,  160  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  161  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  was  no't  adopted. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaf- 
frey,  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill, — 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  accepted  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill as  amended, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  that  the  Committee 
do  now  rise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  the  reso- 
lution be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Upon  that  motion  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  called  for  a  divi- 
sion. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Tn  order  that  all  may  understand  the 
parliamentary^  situation,  if  the  Chairman  will  allow  me,  I  will 
sug-gest  that  all  who  are  in  favor  of  initiative  and  referendum 
understand  that  they  vote  "no"  on  this  proposition. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  raised  the  point  that  the  motion 
is  not  in  order. 

The  chair  ruled  the  point  well  taken. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  that  the  Committee 
do  now  rise  and  recommend  that  the  resolution  be  not  agreed 
to. 


198     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

On  that  motion  Mr.  Barton  called  for  a  division. 

Question  being  on  tlie  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Xew^oort, — 

Mr.  Wddleigh  of  Milford. — Wasn't  my  motion  proper,  that  we 
recommend  this  resolution  favorably?  I  thoug-ht  I  so  made 
the  motion. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Neiopwt. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  to  a  point  of  or- 
der, that  there  was  a  motion  pending  at  that  time,  and  that 
my  motion  was  first  made  when  the  board  was  clear. 

Mr.  WadleigJi  of  Milford. — I  rise  to  another  point  of  order  and 
I  appeal  to  the  g-entlemen  of  the  Convention  to  be  fair  on  the 
vote  upon  this  matter,  and  take  it  direct  upon  the  resolution 
as  it  should  be.  I  appeal  to  the  gentleman  from  Newport  to 
make  the  motion  fair,  to  recommend  this  resolution,  and  take 
it  "yes"  and  "no." 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  understand  that  my 
motion  is  just  as  fair  as  the  gentleman  who  has  just  spoken. 
I  simply  say  that  we  make  the  resolution  that  we  reject  the 
proposition.  He  wishes  to  make  it  that  we  accept  it.  Now  ^ 
we  can  vote  just  as  intelligently  and  just  as  fairly  on  the  nega- 
tive as  on  the  affirmative,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  I  should 
withdraw  in  the  interest  of  these  other  gentlemen. 

The  Chairman. — The  motion  before  the  Committee  is  the  mo- 
tion made  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  that 
the  Committee  do  now  rise  and  report  that  this  resolution  be 
not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  moved  that  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Barton  of  Newport  be  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — ^It  doesn't  make  a  particle  of  dif- 
ference, it  seems  to  me,  whether  we  vote  on  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Milford,  which  he  made  out  of  order,  be- 
cause he  made  the  motion  while  another  motion  was  pend- 
ing and  before  the  point  of  order  had  been  decided,  whether 
we  vote  on  such  a  motion  as  his,  or  on  such  a  motion  as  that 
of  the  gentleman  from  Newport.  It  doesn't  make  any  difference 
on  which  we  vote,  only  I  trust  we  shall  not  waste  a  lot  of  time 
here  quibbling  over  words.  If  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Milford  had  been  made  in  order,  I  would  just  as  soon 
vote  on  that  as  the  other.  He  made  it  while  another  motion 
was  pending  and  before  a  point  of  order  had  been  decided. 
After  the  point  of  order  had  been  decided  the  gentleman  from 
Newport  made  his  motion,  which  was  in  order. 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  19^ 

Mr.  PiUsbury  of  Lo7idond)erry. — In  the  interest  of  doing  busi- 
ness, if  his  motion  prevailed  it  would  take  two  votes  instead 
of  one.  It  will  not  make  any  difference;  we  are  on  the  same 
side.     Why  not  withdraw  it  and  do  business? 

■Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  withdrew  his  motion. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  N'ewport, — 

Division  being  had,  170  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  160  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion 
prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Whit^temore  of  Dover,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
to  whom  was  referred  Eesolution  N"o.  4,  Eelating  to  the  Ini- 
tiative and  Eeferendum  and  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the 
Constitution,  having  considered  the  same,  report  the  same 
with  an  amendment,  and  recommend  that  'the  resolution  as 
amended  be  not  agreed  to:  Amend  by  striking  out  all  of  the 
resolution  after  the  words,  "Re-number  Article  6,  making  it 
Article  7,  'and  likewise  re-number  all  succeeding  articles  of 
Part  Second  of  the  Constitu'tion.'' 

Question  being  on  the  report  of  the  committee, — 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  dem'and  was  seconded  by  ten  members. 

On  the  yeas  and  nays  178  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirm- 
a/tive  and  157  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative. 

YEAS. 

Rockingham  County.  Knights,  Marston,  Shepard,  Web- 
ster, Ingalls,  Eastman  of  Exeter,  Fuller  of  Exeter,  Scammon, 
Sanborn,  Emerson,  Lane,  Healey,  Rowe,  Collins  of  Kingston, 
Leighton,  Willey,  Dow,  Guptill,  Gordon,  Lovering,  Jewell  of 
South  Hampton. 


200    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Strafford  County.  Hurd  of  Dover,  Neal  of  Dover, 
Whittemore,  Foss,  Hall  of  Dover,  Knox,  Hanson,  Berry  of 
New  Durham,  Richards,  Meader,  Hoyt  of  Rochester,  Wallace, 
Haines. 

Belknap  County.  Bean  of  Belmont,  Merrill  of  Gilford, 
Parsons,  Busiel,  Young  of  Laconia,  Yeazey  of  Laconia,  Drake 
of  Laconia,  Thyng,  Fellows,  Til'ton. 

Carroll  County.  Wiggin,  Chandler,  Fifield,  Gibson, 
Shirley,  Huckins,  Trickey,  Fl^ench  of  Moultonborough,  Weeks 
of  Ossipee,  Wentworth,  Berry  of  Wakefield,  Abbott. 

Merrimack  County.  Stone  of  Andover,  Kittredge, 
Clough  of  Canterbury,  Shaw  of  Chichester,  Tibbetts,,  Lyford, 
Mitchell  of  Concord,  Corning,  Morrill  of  Concord,  Bancroft, 
Kimball,  Martin,  Flint,  Quimby  of  Concord,  Hill  of  Concord, 
Gardner,  Clifford,  Little,  Donigan,  Young  of  Northfield, 
Fowler,  G.  W.,  of  Pembroke,  Clark  of  Pittsfield,  Wadleigh  of 
Sutton,  Carroll,  Burnham. 

Hillsborough  County.  Harvell,  Soper,  Patch,  Hadley, 
Seeton,  Flanders,  Brown  of  Hudson,  Richer,  Sayers,  Tait, 
Brown  of  Manchester,  Lambert,  Pattee  of  M'anchester,  War- 
ren, Wilson  of  Manchester,  Jones  of  Manchester,  Cavanaugh, 
Fairbanks,  Garmon,  Young  of  Manchester,  Stevens  of  Man- 
cheslter,  Woodbury  of  Manchester,  Biron,  Barker  of  Merri- 
mack, Keyes,  Greeley,  Andrews  of  Nashua,  French  of  Nashua, 
Wason,  Runnells,  Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Marden  of  New  Bos- 
ton, Hobbs  of  Pelham,  Smith  of  Peterborough,  Colburn, 
Morse  of  Weare,  Bales. 

Cheshire:  County.  Blake,  Howe  of  Hinsdale,  Mower  of 
Jaffrey,  Norwood,  Wellman  of  Keene,  Clark  of  Keene,  Fuller 
of  Marlboro,  Craig,  Fletcher,  Nims  of  Roxbury,  Goodnow, 
Whitcomb  of  Swanzey,  Spaulding  of  Walpole,  Nims  of  West- 
moreland. 

Sullivan  County.  Rossiter,  Davis  of  Croydon,  Booth, 
Howard,  Winch,  Johnson  of  Newport. 


Wednesday,  June  12,  1912.  201 

Grafton  Coitnty.  Mathews,  Gammons,  Parker  of  Ben- 
ton, Lewis,  Carlton,  Wells,  Spooner,  Barney  of  Grafton, 
Jewell  of  Groton,  Storrs,  Clark  of  Haverhill^  I^wrence, 
Whitcher,  Moore  of  Hebron,  Carter,  Haltton,  True,  Water- 
man, Oakes,  Eastman  of  Littleton,  Veazie  of  Littleton,  Shnte 
of  Lyman,  Gilchrist,  Ford,  Carr,  Keniston,  Herbert,  Hazeltine 
of  Thornton,  Green  of  Waterville,  Shu'te  of  Wentworth. 

Coos  County.  Goss,  Dudley,  Johnson  of  Colebrook, 
Lang,  Evans,  Morris,  Watson,  Simpson,  Knapp,  Pattee  of 
Stratford. 

NAYS. 

Rockingham  County.  Griffin,  Collins  of  Danville,  Batch- 
elder  of  Deerfield,  Benson,  Leddy,  Holmes,  Pillsbury  of  Lon- 
donderry, Hayford,  Towle,  Batchelder  of  Nottingham, 
Boynton,  Mitchell  of  Portsmouth,  Brown  of  Raymond,  Drake 
of  Rye,  Foote,  Gowen. 

Steaffobd  County.  Clark  of  Barrington,  Folsom,  Will- 
son  of  Farmington,  Sanders  of  Madbury,  Roberts,  Preston, 
Durgin. 

Belknap  County.  McDuffee  of  Alton,  Moore  of  Barn- 
stead,  Richardson,  Wright. 

Caejeioll  County.  Povall,  Andrews  of  Bartlett,  Robert- 
son, Wormwood,  Hoyt  of  Madison,  Pollard,  Lamprey,  Hobbs 
of  Wolfeboro. 

Merrimack  County.  Buxton,  Farrand,  Marden  of  Con- 
cord:,'Hollis  of  Ward  3,  Concord,  Hollis  of  Ward  4,  Concord, 
Hatch,  Gallagher,  Henneberry,  Dean,  Bean  of  Franklin, 
Jones  of  Franklin,  Wilkins,  Mitchell  of  Hooksett,  Boutwell, 
Drake  of  Pittsfield,  Shaw  of  Salisbury,  Sawyer,  Goodhue. 

HiLLSBOEOUGH  CouNTY.  Fcsscnden,  Brown  of  Green- 
ville, Weare,  Hayden,  Saunders  of  Litchfield,  Tarbell, 
Crawford,  Libbey,  Lindquist,  Pillsbury  of  Manchester,  Shon- 
tell,  Broderick,  Connor  of  Ward  5,  Manchester,  Eagan,  Glynn, 
Howe  of  Manchester,  Magan,  Ryan,  Sheehan,  Chatel,  McDon- 


202    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ough,  riorse  of  Manchester,  Moquin,  Rodelsperger,  Scniller, 
Tinkham,  Van  Vliet,  Geoffrion,  Martel,  Turcotte,  Chevrette, 
Donnelly,  Leclerc  of  Manchester,  Eaton,  Wadleigh  of  Milford, 
Gilmore,  Rancour,  Parker  of  Nashua,  Phaneuf,  Shea,  Tolles, 
Clancy,  Dionne,  Ducharme,  Theriault,  Davis  of  New  Ipswich, 
Jones  of  Peterborough,  Smith  of  Sharon,  Nelson. 

Cheshire  County.  Slade,  Pierce  of  Dublin,  Hubbard, 
Temple,  Duncan,  Sturtevant,  Faulkner,  Ruffle,  Twitchell, 
Newell,  Connors,  Ball. 

SuLLiYAX  County.  Neal  of  Acworth,  Young  of  Charles- 
town,  Brooks,  Hurd  of  Claremont,  Quimby  of  Claremont, 
Upham,  Comings,  Parker  of  Dempster,  Tracy,  Philbrick, 
Bailey  of  'Sunapee,  Newton. 

Grafton  COu'nty.  DeGross,  Whipple,  Moulton,  TJpdyke, 
Curry,  Stevens  of  Landaff,  Bailey  of  Dittleton,  Brummer, 
Grant  of  Dyme,  Ames,  Clement,  Green  of  Woodstock. 

Coos  County.  Smith  of  Berlin,  Smyth,  Noyes,  Sullivan, 
Haarvei,  Wolf,  Sheehe,  Whitcomb  of  Dalton,  Wight,  Ben- 
nett, Clough  of  Jefferson,  Cleaveland,  Hancock,  Hayes, 
Potter,  Baldwin,  Pike,  Bowker,  Garland. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket  was  paired  wi'th  Mr.  Barton  of 
Newport. 

Mr.  Entwistle  of  Portsmouth  was  paired  with  Mr.  Ander- 
son of  Exeter. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed a!t  1.55  o'clock. 

Afternoon. 

The  Convention  met  at  2  o'clock,  according  to  adjoam- 

ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Broderick  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  4.15  o'clock. 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  203 

THURSDAY,  June  13,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  Charles  C.  Gar- 
land of  Concord. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  mo'tion  of  Mr.  Green  of  Woodstock,  the  further  reading 
was  dispensed  with. 

Tellers  Appointeid. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  tellers  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  session: — 

Division  No.  1. — Mr.  Leighton  of  Newfields. 
Division  No.  2.— Mr.  Hobbs  of  Pelham. 
Division  No.  3. — Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury. 
Division  No.  4. — ^Mr.  Sise  of  Portsmouth. 
Division  No.  5. — Mr.  Flint  of  Ct)ncord. 

Le^ve  of  Absence. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  Messrs.  Sanborn  of  Fremont, 
and  Batchelder  of  Deerfield,  for  Thursday  forenoon,  on  ac- 
count of  important  business. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  Mr.  P.  J.  Smyth  of  Berlin, 
for  Thursday  afternoon  and  Friday,  on  account  of  important 
business. 

Change  of  Refeoeience. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont, — 

Resolved,  That  the  order  whereby  Resolution  No.  48,  Re- 
lating to  Roll  Call  in  the  Legislature,  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  be  vacated  and  the  same  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord, — 


204     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolved,  That  the  orders  whereby  Eesolution  No.  30,  Re- 
lating to  County  Officers,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department,;  Resolution  No. 
40,  Relating  to  County  Commissioners,  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole;  Resolution  No.  41,  Relating  to 
Registers  of  Probate,  'and  Resolution  No.  42,  Relating  to 
Registers  of  Deeds,  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judi- 
cial Department,  be  vacated  and  the  same  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution 
and  other  Proposed  Amendments. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  tha't  the  Conven- 
tion resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  Resolution  No.  5,  Relating  to  Taxation  of 
Wild  and  Forest  Lands  and  Money  at  Interest,  'and  Resolu- 
tion No.  37,  Relating  to  Income  Tax. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  moved  to  amend  the  motion 
so  as  to  include  all  other  resolutions  relating  to  taxation,  the 
same  being. 

Resolution  No.  33,  Relating  to  Taxation. 

Resolution  No.  37,  Relating  to  Income  Tax. 

Resolution  No.  39,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  Lands. 

Resolution  No.  50,  Relating  to  Taxes. 

Resolution  No.  51,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Incomes. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment, — 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  accepted  ithe  amendment. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord, 
as  amended, — 

On  a  vwa  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevaileid. 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  205 

In  CO'M:\uttee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Oakes'of  Lisbon  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — ^Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee:  I  desire  jour  indulg-ence,  briefly,  while  I  make 
some  suggestions,  or  exjilanations,  with  respect  to  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  me  to  Resolution  No.  5. 

In  the  observation  with  reference  to  this  amendment  to  that 
resolution,  there  are  involved,  directly,  or  indirectly,  questions 
raised:  by  the  other  resolutions  relating  to  taxation,  now  before 
the  Committee.  Resolution  No.  5  introduced  by  the  g-entleman 
from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  provides  for  the  taxation,  under 
classiiication,  as  I  characterize  it,  of  timber  lands  and  money 
at  interest.  The  terms  used  to  designate  wood  and  timber 
lands  are  "wild  and  forest  lands,"  which  I  regard  as  too  re- 
strictive for  the  purpose  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  this 
amendment.  Therefore,  this  amendment,  w^hich  I  offer,  to 
Resolution  No.  5,  substitutes  the  words,  "growing  wood  and 
timber,"  for  "wild  and  forest  lands,"  because  the  terms  "wild 
and  forest,"  according  to  the  ordinary  acceptation  and  defini- 
tion of  those  terms,  might  possibly,  and,  I  think,  would  proba- 
bly, defeat  the  object  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  this  amend- 
ment. And  unless  the  words,  "growing  wood  and  timber"  are 
sufficiently  definite,  sufficiently  comprehensive,  to  indicate 
clearly  the  purposes  of  the  Convention  with  respect  to  the  lati- 
tude here  to  be  granted,  then,  certainly,  I  have  no  pride  of 
opinion  that  will  interfere  with  the  substitution  of  other  words 
which  will  make  the  expression  and  purpose  of  the  Convention 
more  and  sufficiently  definite  to  remove  all  doubt.  For  in- 
stance, "wild  and  forest"  might  be  held,  in  the  ordinary  defini- 
tion of  those  terms,  to  include  only  forests  in  their  primitive 
condition,  which,  of  course,  every  one  will  agree,  are  not  suf- 
ficiently comprehensive.  Because,  as  undoubtedly  all  will 
agree,  there  ought  to  be  granted,  through  this  amendment, 
legislative  permission,  if  the  legislature  deems  it  expedient  not 
only  to  classify  lands  which  are  in  their  primitive  state  but 
lands  which  have  had  the  growth  removed  and  are  again  cov- 
ered with  wood  and  timber.  Leaving  the  whole  subject,  so  far 
as  that  proposition  is  concerned,  so  that  the  legislature  can 
deal  with  it  without  any  limit, — ^without  any  restriction, — so  far 
as  the  area,  or  quality  of  timber  lands,  that  is,  lands  covered 
by  wood  and  timber,  are  concerned. 

According  to   the  reports  of  the  Forestry  Commission  there 
are  only  about  one  half  a  million  acres  of  land  in  this  state, — ^to 


206     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

be  exact,  I  think  they  put  it  at  537,000  acres,  covered  by  what 
may  properly  be  desigTiated  as  primitive  g-rowth,  while  there 
are  in  area  1,620,000  acres,  in  addition  to  this,  which  may  be 
properly  characterized  and  considered  as  wood  and  timber 
lands.  The  object  of  this  amendment  is  to  permit  the  legisla- 
ture, if  it  deems  it  wise  and  expedient,  and  in  the  interest  of 
the  public,  to  classify  the  whole,  the  1,620,000  acres  as  well  as 
the  527,000  acres,  or  to  classify  either,  or  a  part  of  each,  leaving 
the  matter  entirely  open,  as  it  should  be,  to  the  wisdom,  the 
discretion,  and  sagacity  of  the  legislature. 

In  reference  to  the  difficulties  relating  to  the  other  branch  of 
the  subject,  that  is,  money  at  interest,  it  is,  I  believe,  necessary 
tnat  that  clause  should  be  more  comprehensive  or  more  ex- 
plicit, so  that  the  terms  employed  may  unmistakably  include 
deposits  in  savings  banks,  within  and  without  the  state.  The 
savings  bank  deposits  of  this  state  are  too  important  a  part  of 
its  property  and  of  Its  taxables  to  be  longer  left  In  doubt, 
either  by  virtue  of  a  constitutional  construction  or  judicial  de- 
cisions. To  amend  the  Constitution,  in  the  present  state  of  the 
law,  without  providing  clearly  for  the  taxation  of  savings  bank 
deposits,  may  embarrass  and  perhaps  imperil  the  interests  of 
the  people  with  respect  to  the  taxable  status  of  savings  bank 
deposits.  At  present,  the  question,  as  was  stated  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  when  he  introduced  his  reso- 
lution, is  open,  and  it  never  has  been  judicially  met  and  deter- 
mined whether  the  deposits  in  savings  banks,  as  they  are  now 
taxed,  would  stand  the  test  of  the  application  of  the  constitu- 
tional rule,  with  respect  to  proportion  and  equality.  The  ques- 
tion has  never  been  airectly  raised,  and  consequently,  it  has 
never  been  directly  adjudicated,  and  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion, with  respect  to  taxation,  in  the  manner  proposed,  without 
making  some  provision  for  special  taxation  of  that  great  and 
important  class  of  property,  would  be  perilous,  and,  in  the  fu- 
ture, would  very  likely  be  troublesome.  As  now  held  by  the 
Court,  the  limit  to  which  it  has  gone,  or  felt  justified  in  ^  oing, 
in  recognition  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  present  rates,  or 
method  of  taxation,  the  rate  formerly  having  been  1  per  cent, 
while  at  present  it  is  three  quarters  of  1  per  cent,  upon  the 
deposits,  is  to  hold  that  this  method  is  an  anomaly  depending 
upon  an  implied  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  equality  and 
proportion.  This,  as  all  must  readily  admit,  is  a  very  slender 
thread  on  which  to  rest  the  taxation  of  such  an  important  part 
of  the  property  of  the  people  of  the  state;  and  it  would  be 
more  questionable  and  the  thread  much  lighter  with  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  that  did  not  take  care  of  and  provide 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  207 

for  the  taxation  of  this  property  in  explicit  and  unambiguous 
terms.  Therefore,  it  is  my  purpose,  iby  this  amendment,  in 
which  I  trust  the  Committee  will  concur,  to  put  within  the 
power  of  the  legislature  to  do,  constitutionally,  that  which  it 
is  now  doing,  viz.,  practically  classify  savings  bank  deposits. 
The  savings  banks  of  this  state,  as  all  must  admit,  need  care, 
need  protection.  Therein  are  deposited  the  accumulations,  the 
earnings,  of  many  people  of  this  state. 

The  deposits  last  year  aggregated  in  excess  of  $90,000,000, 
and  on  account  of  the  increased  deposits  of  the  current  year 
they  will  probably  be  nearly  $100,000,000  this  year.  The  de- 
posits of  last  year,  contributed  in  taxes,  to  the  state  treasury 
$533,000.  This  is  a  reasonable  tax,  easily  and  inexpensively  col- 
lected. And  all  that  is  now  asked,  or  expected,  is  that  the 
existing  condition  may  be  continued,  constitutionally,  so  that 
no  question  will  or  can  hereafter  be  raised  to  trouble  the  Court 
of  this  state,  or  that  of  the  Federal  Government.  As  you  are 
all  aware,  in  the  matter  of  taxation,  we  have  not  only  our  own 
State  Constitution  to  recognize  and  conform  to  in  the  matter 
of  legislation,  but  we  must  recognize  the  provisions  of  the 
fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution, — that  Consti- 
tution which  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  upon  this  subject. 
And  by  that  amendment,  that  is,  the  fourteenth  amendment  to 
the  United  States  Constitution,  there  is  given  to  every  person, 
natural  or  corporate,  the  right  to  the  equal  protection  of  the 
law,  and  the  guarantee  that  he  or  it  shall  not  be  deprived,  by 
any  state,  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of 
law, — which  means,  for  the  subject  of  taxation,  that  each  per- 
son must  bear,  and  only  bear,  his  equitable  and  fair  proportion 
of  the  public  burdens,  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  state.  And  one  danger,  or  embarrassment,  which  might 
result  from  the  failure  to  expressly  include  savings  bank  de- 
posits, which  may  be  classified,  would  be  the  liability  to^  have 
raised,  on  the  objection  of  any  other  taxpayer,  whether  a  na- 
tural person  or  corporation,  the  yet  unsettled  constitutional 
right  of  the  legislature  to  authorize  the  taxation  of  this  class 
of  property  at  a  rate  different  from  that  at  which  other 
property  is  taxed.  While  the  Federal  Court  holds  'that  it  is 
jjonstitutionally  permissible  under  the  fourteenth  amendment  to 
the  Federal  Constitution  to  classify  taxable  properties  for 
taxation,  it  might  not  hold,  if  objection  were  made,  that  the 
present  method  and  rate,  for  the  taxation  of  savings  bank  de- 
posits was  constitutionally  permissible.  Therefore,  it  is  impor- 
tant that  this  proposed  amendment  be  so  expressed  that  the 
present  method  of  taxing  savings  banks  deposits  will  be  in  har- 


208     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

mony  with,  and  justified  under  the  provisions  of  both  the  State 
and  Federal  Constitutions. 

There  is,  also,  involved  in  this  amendment,  another  privilege, 
that  is:  This  amendment,  if  adopted,  will  authorize  the  taxa- 
tion, or  classification,  of  deposits  made  by  citizens  of  this  state 
in  the  savings  banks  of  other  states.  Massachusetts  and  Ver- 
mont, our  neighboring  states,  do  this  now.  If  a  resident  of  the 
State  of  Massachusetts  or  the  State  of  Vermont  makes  a  de- 
posit in  one  of  the  New  Hampshire  sa\ings  banks,  notwith- 
standing that  deposit  yields  to  the  treasury  of  this  state  three- 
quarters  of  one  per  cent,  in  taxes,  the  deposit  is  also  taxed  to 
the  owner  in  Massachusetts,  or  Vermont,  as  the  case  may  be. 
If  citizens  of  this  state  make  deposits  in  Massachusetts,  or  Ver- 
mont banks,  while  enjoying  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  this 
state,  why  should  they  not  make  a  contribution  equal  in 
amount  to  that  they  would  make  if  their  deposits  were  in  the 
savings  banks  of  this  state? 

This  amendment  also  permits,  or  authorizes,  if  the  legis- 
lature deems  it  wise,  not  only  the  classification  of  those  proper- 
ties, but  the  right  to  make  reasonable  exemptions  of  them,  or 
a  part  of  them.  This  right  should  exist,  because  there  may  be 
good  reasons  why  certain  exemptions  should  be  granted. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  taxation  of  bonds.  Should  not  bonds 
issued  for  the  purpose  of  creating  or  promoting  an  industry  in 
this  state,  which  will  create  new  property  for  taxation,  and  fur- 
nish additional  employment  for  local  labor,  be  favored  in  pref- 
erence to  bonds  issued  for  the  purpose  of  creating  property  for 
industries  in  Massachusetts,  or  elsewhere,  which  will  there 
create  new  taxable  capital,  and  furnish  employment  for  addi- 
tional labor  outside  this  state? 

As  is  well  known  and  perfectly  understood,  these  two  classes 
of  property,  that  is,  timber  lands  and  money  at  interest,  as  well 
as  some  others,  have  for  many  years  been  taxed  when  taxed 
at  all,  at  a  rate  much  below  that  proportional  rate  required  by 
the  existing  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

As  a  result  of  the  investigation  made  by  the  special  Tax  Com- 
mission appointed  by  the  legislature  of  liH>7  who  leported  to 
the  legislature  of  1909,  it  was  found  that  timber  lands,  when 
assessed,  were  only  assessed  at  about  thirty  per  cent  of  their 
value;  and  that  not  one-tenth  of  the  money  at  interest  and 
securities  representing  that  money  was  taxed  at  all.  S'o  that 
the  state  is  now  confronted  with  the  proposition  that  under 
the  Constitution  and  under  the  existing  law,  all  properties  must 
bear  the  same  proportionate  part  of  the  public  burdens,  with- 
out reference  to  their  character  or  quality.     That  the  owners 


Thuksday,  June  13,  1912.  209 

of  timber  lands  cannot,  or,  clearly,  will  not  continue  their 
standing"  timber,  yielding  but  a  small  percentage  of  growth  to 
bear  the  proportionate  part  of  the  public  burden  required  by 
the  existing  constitutional  requirement,  must  be  manifest  to  us 
all.  And  monej-  at  interest  is  so  elusive  and  so  easily  trans- 
ferred and  transformed  into  a  form  where  the  taxgatherer 
cannot  reach  it,  it  is  useless  to  expect  that  this  class  of  prop- 
erty-, if  it  may  properly  be  designated  as  property,  wall  con- 
tinue to  be  held  by  its  present  owners,  unless  there  is  some 
equitable  method  adopted  for  placing  upon  it  a  different  rate, 
or  a  different  burden  is  imposed  from  that  upon  other  kinds  of 
property. 

I  favor  the  classification  of  these  two  general  classes  of  prop- 
erty. I  do  not  thus  favor  their  classification  because  it  is  to 
extend  to  these  properties  special  privileges  or  special  immuni- 
ties, but  because  I  believe  it  is  the  only  practical  way,  through 
taxation,  to  promote  and  subserve,  as  well  as  conserve,  the  In- 
terests of  the  state. 

I  do  not  believe,  as  a  general  proposition,  in  the  relief  of  one 
class  of  people,  through  taxation,  for  the  benefit  of  others.  I 
believe  in  absolutely  unqualified  equality  of  burden  wherever 
that  is  practicable. 

Taxation  is  the  method  provided  by  the  state  to  secure  from 
each  person  his  equitable  contribution  towards  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  government.  The  taxpayer  makes  his  contribu- 
tion in  consideration  of  the  protection  he  receives  for  his  life, 
for  his  liberty,  and  for  his  property.  The  tax  a  man  pays  is  not 
a  gift  to  some  unknown,  imaginary  being,  or  entity.  It  is 
simply  the  price  that  that  man  pays  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
government,  in  consideration  for  which  the  government  is 
obliged  in  return  to  protect  him  in  his  life,  in  his  liberty  and  in 
the  possession  of  his  property. 

The  eontribution  by  the  citizen  for  this  purpose  and  govern- 
mental protection,  in  consideration  of  it,  are  reciprocal.  And 
any  man  who  pays  more  than  his  proportionate  part  of  the 
burden,  as  indicated  by  the  organic  law,  is  paying  not  alone  for 
his  own  protection  but  for  that  of  another;  while  any  man  who 
pays  less  than  his  proportionate,  equitable  part  of  the  public 
burden  is  simply  getting,  without  contribution,  and  Avithout 
consideration,  protecton  of  his  life,  liberty  and  property. 
Therefore,  there  is  no  proposition  here  involved,  and  should 
not  be,  for  the  relief  of  any  person,  or  any  class  of  persons,  or 
any  property,  or  any  class  of  property,  from  bearmg  its  fair 
and  equitable  proportion  of  the  public  burden. 


210     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

Under  this  method  of  classification,  the  timber  lands  of  the 
state  can  be  equitably  and  reasonably  taxed,  without  oppress- 
ing their  owners,  and  without  forcing  their  owners  to  strip  the 
lands  of  the  forests,  which  should  be  continued  growing  for 
many  years  to  come. 

It  is  not  for  this  bo^y  to  prescribe  any  rule  whereby  this 
result  can  be  accomplished.  It  is  simply  for  us  to  recommend 
to  the  people  the  adoption  of  a  general  principle  whereby  the 
legislature  will  be  permitted  to  equitably  and  reasonably  class- 
ify and  impose  such  a  reasonable  burden  upon  this  class  of 
property  that  the  owners  will  feel  justified  in  continuing  its 
existence  and  paying  an  equitable  contribution  for  the  protec- 
tion that  is  afforded  them. 

In  the  case  of  money  at  interest,  it  is  manifest,  from  the  ex- 
perience of  the  past,  that  the  owner  of  this  form  of  property 
will  not  continue  to  hold  the  securities  in  which  it  is  invested 
subject  to  that  rule  of  taxation  which  now  exists.  The  money 
can  be  converted,  and,  of  course,  the  interest  of  the  parties  will 
prompt  them  to  convert  it,  into  securities  that  are  non-taxable. 
In  the  past,  there  is  no  question  but  that,  conservatively  esti- 
mated, there  has  been  in  this  state,  $100,000,000  of  taxable  in- 
tangibles. While  during  the  years  that  this,  or  the  money  that 
was  thus  invested,  existed,  the  records  show  that  less  than  eight 
per  cent,  and,  in  many  instances,  only  about  five  per  cent  of  it, 
has  been  taxed.  This  being  so,  it  is  manifest,  simply  from  the 
standpoint  of  securing  revenue,  that  it  wdll  be  better  for  the 
state  to  have  a  moderate  percentage,  say  one-half  of  one  per 
cent  imposed  upon  property  of  this  character  rather  than  drive 
it  out  of  the  state,  or  into  non-taxable  securities.  There  is  an- 
other feature  which  should  not  be  overlooked,  and  that  is,  that 
the  holding  of  securities,  such  as  bonds  at  a  comparatively  low 
rate  of  interest  should  not  be  discouraged.  There  is  a  large 
body  of  people,  including  trustees  and  persons  whose  business 
capacity  is  more  or  less  limited,  who,  if  not  permitted  to  own 
bonds  of  a  high  grade,  bearing  a  reasonable  rate  of  taxation, 
will  be  forced  to  invest  their  money  in  questionable  securities, 
and  that  certainly  will  be  not  only  individually  unfortunate  but 
collectively  Injurious  to  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  the 
state.  Therefore,  it  is  better  to  permit  the  legislature  to  use 
its  sound  judgment  ^vith  respect  to  this  class  of  property,  as 
well  as  wood  and  timber  lands. 

This  authorization  does  not  compel  the  legislature  to  make 
the  classification  of  both,  or  either,  but  it  grants  them  permis- 
sion, in  case  the  well-being  of  the  state,  in  their  judgment, 
justifies  and  requires  it.  This  is  all  that  this  provision  would 
result  in. 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  211 

In  another  resolution,  pending-  before  the  Convention,  and 
now  before  this  Committee  for  discussion,  it  is  proposed  to  in- 
clude, for  taxation,  and  classification,  stocks  in  corporations,  as 
well  as  loans,  or  other  money  at  interest. 

The  amendment  to  which  I  direct  your  attention  does  not  go 
to  this  extent;  nor  am  I  in  favor  of  going  to  such  an  extent,  be- 
cause to  tax  stock,  the  property  it  represents  already  being 
taxed,  here  or  elsewhere,  would  be,  as  held  by  our  Court, 
double  taxation.  To  tax  the  stock,  the  property  it  represents 
being  already  taxed,  or  taxable,  would  not  only  be  double  taxa- 
tion, but  would  violate  the  principle  of  our  Bill  of  Rights,  which 
requires,  as  interpreted  by  the  Court,  that  taxation  shall  be 
"reasonable."  So  it  would  not  be  just,  because  not  reasonable, 
J;o  tax  both.  A  certificate  of  stock,  as  every  one  knows,  and 
must  recognize,  is  merely  evidence  of  title.  A  corporation  is 
nothing  but  an  incorporated  co-partnership.  It  is  a  mere  ag- 
gregation of  individuals  who  combine  their  property  and  give 
certificates  of  stock  to  evidence  the  title  of  the  respective  stock- 
holders to  their  proportionate  part  of  the  property  of  the  cor- 
poration. The  certificate  of  stock  in  a  corporation  is  no  more 
property  than  a  deed  to  land  is  property, — each  is  a  mere  piece 
of  evidence, — the  evidence  of  title  to  the  property  which  it 
represents.  While  it  might  be  justifiable,  if  constitutionally 
permissible,  to  tax  the  income  from  stocks,  a  proposition  which 
I  would  favor,  I  would  not  favor  the  taxation  of  the  certificate 
of  stock,  or  the  double  taxation  of  the  property  which  it 
represents.  And  for  this  reason,  the  subject  of  stock  taxation 
should  not  be  considered  or  conjoined  with  the  subject  of  the 
taxation  of  money  at  interest.  Bach  sbould  stand  upon  its  own 
basis,   because  it  represents  different   elements   of  property. 

And  for  the  reasons  suggested,  I  trust  the  Committee  will 
consider  favorably  the  amendment  which  I  propose,  and  in  the 
form  in  which  it  now  stands. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  one  of  the  most 
important  questions  that  is  to  come  before  this  Convention,  for 
it  relates  to  the  fiscal  policy  of  this  state.  My  colleague  from 
Ward  4.  Concord,  has  explained  the  legal  aspect  of  this  amend- 
ment most  clearly.  I  desire  to  address  myself  to  the  practical 
side  of  the  question.  So  far  as  it  relates  to  intangibles,  that 
is  to  say,  money  at  interest,  bonds,  mortgages  and  credits,  the 
experience  of  this  state  is  no  different  from  the  experience  of 
other  states,  in  attempting  to  tax  these  evidences  of  debt  at  the 
eame  rate  that  property  is  taxed.  It  has  been  the  experience 
of  this  state  for  years,  as  it  has  been  the  experience  of 
other  states.     In  1878,  the  legislature  of  this  state  passed  what 


212     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

was  known  as  the  inventory  law,  which  was  rigidly  enforced 
the  first  year  after  its  adoption,  and  the  returns  from  intangi- 
bles, which  had  been  about  four  millions  up  to  that  time, 
jumped  to  seventeen  millions, — as  I  recall  the  figures.  The 
next  year  they  fell  to  fifteen  or  twelve  millions,  and  within  five 
years  the  amount  of  intangibles  returned  had  decreased  to  the 
sum  that  existed  before  the  law  was  passed.  The  reason  for 
this  was  that  people  who  held  bonds  bearing  a  low  rate  of 
interest,  either  did  not  return  them,  or,  if  forced  to  return,  lied 
about  their  property,  or  they  sold  the  property,  or  they  moved 
out  of  the  state.  In  the  state  of  Ohio  they  have  resorted  to  all 
kinds  of  drastic  methods,  except  physical  torture,  to  force 
people  to  disclose  this  kind  of  property,  so  that  it  should  be 
taxed  at  the  same  rate  as  tangible  property,  and  the  experience- 
of  that  state  is  the  experience  of  all  other  states  in  that  re- 
spect. The  Tax  Commission  of  the  state  of  Ohio  summarized 
the  result  by  saying  it  had  driven  property  out  of  the  state, 
and  that  where  it  had  not  driven  property  out  of  the  state  it 
has  made  of  the  people  who  held  it  a  commonwealth  of  per- 
jurers. The  reason  is  not  far  to  see,  when  you  take  from  fifty 
to  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  income  of  property  for  taxes,  it 
becomes  confiscation  of  that  income. 

This  method  strikes  not  at  the  wealthy  man,  he  can  look  out 
for  himself,  but  at  the  widow  and  the  orphan,  whose  inherited 
property  having  to  go  through  the  Probate  Court  is  discovered 
by  the  assessors.  The  practical  question  is  brought  home  to 
a  person  of  limited  means.  A  man  has  a  life  insurance  of  ten 
thousand  dollars.  He  dies  and  leaves  a  widow  and  children. 
The  only  investment  for  a  woman  to  make  in  such  circum- 
stances would  be  in  some  safe  security,  municipal  bonds  that 
would  pay  only  four  per  cent  interest.  *S'he  would  thus  have 
an  income  of  $400,  yet,  taxed  at  the  same  rate  that  other  prop- 
erty is  taxed,  you  immediately  take  from  her  one-half  of  that 
income,  and  in  some  towns  of  this  state  you  would  take  three- 
quarters  of  the  income.  Now  people  are  willing  to  bear  their 
fair  share  of  the  public  burden,  and  in  the  states  of  Maryland 
and  Pennsylvania,  where  their  Constitutions  are  not  drawn  ex- 
actly like  ours,  they  have  been  able  to  classify  intangibles. 
They  did  that  years  ago  in  the  city  of  Baltimore.  Before  the 
classification  took  place,  when  all  property  was  taxed  at  the 
same  rate,  there  were  voluntarily  returned  to  the  assessors 
$6,000,000  of  intangibles.  In  twelve  years  after  the  classifica- 
tion, by  which  intangibles,  instead  of  being  taxed  two  per  cent, 
were  taxed  at  the  rate  of  four  mills,  the  amount  had  increased 
by  voluntary   return   to   $160,000,000.     Now  as  a  practical  ques- 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  213 

tion,  wasn't  it  better  for  the  state  of  Maryland  to  tax  these 
evidences  of  debt  at  the  rate  of  four  mills,  and  receive  taxes  on 
$1(30,000,000,  than  it  was  to  tax  them  at  the  same  rate  as  prop- 
erty, and  receive  taxes  only  on  six  millions  of  dollars? 

Why,  the  best  illustration  of  the  practical  effect  of  the  classi- 
fication of  this  kind  of  property  is  shown  in  the  growth  of  the 
savings  bank  deposits  of  this  state.  Within  twenty-five  years 
they  have  more  than  doubled,  and  during-  that  time  we  had  a 
panic  that  took  several  million  dollars  out  of  the  banks.  Do 
you  suppose  that  if  we  undertook  to  tax  savings  bank  deposits 
at  the  same  rate  that  we  tax  other  property  that  you  could  hold 
ninety  to  a  hundred  millions  of  accumulations  in  the  savings 
banks?  Not  by  a  good  deal.  Within  a  few  years,  if  the  sav- 
ings banks  paid  such  a  tax,  they  would  have  to  reduce  the  divi- 
dends, and  within  a  few  years  you  would  have  drawn  out  of 
the  savings  bank  more  than  half,  if  not  three-quarters,  of  the 
deposits,  and  they  would  be  invested  somewhere  else.  I  say 
to  you  that  this  is  a  practical  question  going  to  the  revenue  of 
the  state.  The  question  came  up  before  the  legislatures  of 
this  state,  and  if  I  mistake  not,  the  last  legislative  body  asked 
the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  regard  to  whether  the 
legislature  had  the  right  to  classify  property,  because  this  very 
subject  was  under  consideration,  and  the  Supreme  Court  de- 
cided in  the  negative.  I  ask  my  colleague  from  Ward  4,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  if  this  is  not  a  fact. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concwd. — The  legislature  certainly  has  not 
that  right. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — The  opinion  of  the  Court  was  given  at 
that  time  as  stated  by  my  colleague  from  Concord.  You  are 
asked,  in  considering  this  amendment,  to  give  power  to  the 
leg-islatiire  to  deal  with  this  question  in  a  practical  and  sensible 
way.  You  are  not  establishing  the  classification  of  property 
here,  but  you  are  giving  to  the  legislature,  which  is  representa- 
tive of  the  people,  the  right  to  determine  whether  it  is  good 
policy  or  not  to  classify  this  kind  of '  property,  that  there  may 
be  honesty  on  the  part  of  individuals  who  hold  it,  and  that  the 
local  communities  may  derive  more  revenue  therefrom. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmonth. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  stated  es- 
sentially the  facts  relative  to  the  tax  problem  in  this  state  at 
this  time.  I  desire  to  speak  on  the  resolution  relative  to  tax- 
ation which  I  have  introduced,  and  also  cover  certain  other  con- 
ditions not  previously  referred  to. 

This  resolution  in  form  is  the  same  as  the  one  introduced 
by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  with  the  exception 


214    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

that  there  is  added  after  the  words  "wild  and  forest  lands"  the 
words  "stock,  stock  in  public  funds,  bonds,"  and  there  is  also 
added  the  following  paragraph,  providing  for  an  income  tax: 

".  .  .  and  also  to  impose  and  levy  an  income  tax  (not 
exceeding  ten  per  cent)  on  the  income  from  any  or  all  the  kinds 
or  classes  of  intangible  property  last  mentioned,  and  it  may 
graduate  the  tax  according  to  the  amount  of  the  income  and 
may  grant  reasonable  exemptions;  provided  that  if  such  tax  be 
levied  on  the  income  from  any  such  intangible  property,  no 
other  tax  shall  be  levied  on  such  stocks,  stock  in  public  funds, 
bonds,  money  at  interest,  or  any  other  intangible  property 
against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof." 

The  amendment,  if  adopted,  will  allow^  the  legislature  to  clas- 
sify and  specially  rate  and  assess  wild  and  forest  lands,  stock, 
stock  in  public  funds,  bonds,  and  money  at  interest,  or  it  may 
assess  an  income  tax  on  intangible  propertj^  in  lieu  of  a  direct 
tax,  as  provided. 

During  the  period  between  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
first  Constitution  and  the  year  1875,  property,  both  tangible  and 
intangible,  was  on  a  comparatively  equal  basis  for  purposes  of 
taxation,  interest  rates  on  both  bonds  and  notes  ruling  at  6 
per  cent  to  10  per  cent  as  late  as  1875.  Since  the  last-named 
date  interest  rates  have  been  gradually  decreasing.  In  recent 
years  the  rates  on  United  States  Government  bonds  have  been 
2  per  cent  and  3  per  cent.  State  bonds  3  per  cent  and  31/2  per 
cent.  Municipal  and  Railroad  bonds  sy,  and  4  per  cent,  and 
mortgage  loans  in  this  state  generallj^  at  5  per  cent. 

In  the  period  previous  to  1875  it  was  not  unreasonable  to  as- 
sess property,  both  tangible  and  intangible,  on  the  same  basis. 
With  the  reduction  in  rate  of  interest  since  1875,  that  plan  has 
become  more  and  more  unjust,  until  at  the  present  time  it 
amounts  substantially  to  confiscation,  as  it  takes  more  than  50 
per  cent  of  the  income  to  pay  taxes  on  intangible  property 
when  returned. 

Stock  is  added  to  the  taxable  list  and  may  be  subject  to 
some  criticism.  It  would  appear  necessarj',  as  under  present 
laws  some  New  Hampshire  and  foreign  stocks  are  taxed  and 
the  legislature  should  have  power  to  tax,  or  exempt,  stock  as 
conditions  may  require  to  make  assessments  of  property  equit- 
able. 

At  the  present  time  stocks  are  generally  exempt  in  the  hands 
of  individuals.  In  the  hands  of  savings  banks,  however,  by 
reason  of  taxing  the  deposits  and  not  the  property  itself,  the 
banks  are  not  allowed  to  take  exemption  for  stock,  but  there 
would  appear  to  be  no  reason  why  securities  of  that  class  should 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  215 

be  exempt  in  the  hands  of  individuals  and  not  exempt  in  the 
hands  of  savings  banks  representing  deposits  of  small  amounts 
averaging  $400  to  $500  in  money,  icJien  it  is  proposed  to  specially 
rate  and  assess  tliis  class  of  pwperty. 

You  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  present  method  of  assess- 
ing this  tax  on  savings  bank  deposits  is  open  to  question,  and 
this  amendment,  in  part,  is  intended  to  correct  that  defect. 

Now,  as  to  the  amount  of  intangible  property  returned  and 
taxed.  The  report  of  the  tax  commission  for  the  year  1911  gives 
the  following  totals: 

Stock  in  public  funds $1,873,413 

Stock  in  banks  and  other  corporations  in  this  state..  3,331,655 

Stock  in  corporations  out  of  this  state 294,140 

Money  on  hand,  at  interest,  or  on  deposit 3,403,180 

Total $8,902,388 

On  a  total  assessment  of  $263,074,386  for  that  year  this  is  only 
.0338  per  cent  of  the  total  rate.  , 

At  the  average  rate  taxed,  2.101  per  cent  the  amount  of  taxes 
received  from  intangible  property  under  present  laws  is  only 
$187,039.  The  savings  deposits  amount  approximately  to  one 
hundred  million  dollars.  An  income  tax  of  10  per  cent  levied 
thereon  would  return  to  the  state  substantially  the  same  rev- 
enue it  now  receives. 

I  believe  I  am  conservative  in  stating  that  there  is  an  equal 
amount  of  intangible  property  in  the  state  in  the  hands  of  in- 
dividuals, which,  if  assessed  on  an  income  basis,  would  give  the 
cities  and  towns  a  revenue  equal  to  five  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars, instead  of  $187,039,  which  is  now  realized  under  present 
laws. 

The  enforcement  of  the  law  is  now  driving  the  most  conserva- 
tive investments  out  of  the  state  and  holders  are  compelled  to 
shift  their  investments  into  stock  equities,  some  of  them  none 
too  good,  as  I  have  reason  to  know. 

iVs  an  economic  proposition,  it  would  be  better  not  to  tax  in- 
tangibles rather  than  continue  present  methods. 

Now,  if  this  resolution  is  adopted  and  the  legislature  spe- 
cially rates  intangibles,  or  assesses  an  income  tax  thereon,  the 
revenue  from  that  source  will  increase,  will  reduce  changes  on 
real  estate  and  business  and  save  a  situation  which  is  becoming 
acute  in  all  sections  of  the  state. 

I  am  opposed  to  an  income  tax  which  will  involve  taxing  the 
income  from  real  property,  business,  or  salaries,  as  this  class 
of  property  is  now  fully  burdened. 


216    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — The  provisions,  in  amendments,  au- 
thorizing exemptions  within  the  income  tax  provisions,  author- 
ize what  the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth  desires,  assuming 
that  the  legislature  adopts  his  views.  In  other  words,  I  had  in 
mind  what  the  gentleman  suggested  and  provided  for  and  I 
have  failed  to  properly  express  my  purpose,  unless  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  accomplishing  what  he  suggests, — that  is,  giving  to 
the  legislature  authority  to  tax,  indirectl3%  through  the  taxa- 
tion of  the  income,  instead  of  taxing  directly  the  property,  the 
principal. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  moved  th'at  the  Committee 
recommend  that  the  Convention  agree  to  Resolution  No.  5, 
Relating  to  Taxation  of  AVild  and  Forest  Lands  and  Money 
at  Interest,  as  amended  by  Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Man- 
chester,^— 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester'. — I  do  not  want  to  discuss  this 
question  at  all.  My  motion  will  bring  the  resolution,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  in  some  shape  for  discussion.  Resolution  No.  39 
seems  to  me  not  an  amendment  to  Resolution  No.  5,  but 
comes  in  as  a  substitute  for  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows.  Now  this  firing  at  all 
of  these  without  coming  to  any  point,  not  only  in  discussion, 
but  our  action,  and  to  make  some  progress  in  our  work  I  make 
the  motion.  Of  course  it  will  be  open  then  for  discussion  that 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Poi^tsmouth  moved  to  amend  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  by  substituting  Resolution 
No.  39,  Relating  to  the  Taxation  of  Wild  Lands,  for  Reso- 
lution No.  5,  Relating  to  the  Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest 
Lands  and  Money  at  Interest. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Boynton  to  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Crawford, — 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter.— li  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  is 
not  wise  for  us  to  be  too  precipitate.  It  certainly  is  not  wise  that 
we  should  make  haste  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  too  much  haste. 
The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  reminded  us  of 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  217 

the  extreme  importance  of  this  subject.  Not  only  is  the 
subject  important,  but  to  get  it  in  the  right  shape  is  impor- 
tant, and  every  detail  of  it  is  important.  This  is  a  matter  of  an 
amendment  to  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state.  If  any  one 
of  these  resolutions  we  are  considering"  is  adopted,  we  are  aban- 
doning absolutely  all  the  constitutional  laws  we  huve  had,  all 
the  fundamental  law  we  have  had  on  the  subject  of  taxation, 
the  onlj^  question  being  how  far  we  shall  go  from  it,  and  it 
does  not  seem  to  me  it  is  wise  for  us  to  do  that  after  merely 
hearing  the  remarks  of  two  or  three  gentlemen. 

There  are  one  or  two  things  that  strike  me.  One  is  this, 
that  while  we  are  told  we  must  not  have  any  double  taxation, 
one  of  the  gentlemen  who  spoke  said  that  one  reason  for  the 
form  in  which  his  motion  was  put  was  to  avoid  double  taxa- 
tion, his  motion  itself  creates  double  taxation  within  the  deci- 
sions of  the  same  Court  to  which  his  Court  succeeded,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Xew  Hampshire.  That  is  to  say,  if  I  under- 
stood it  right,  it  empowers  the  legislature  to  tax  money  In  sav- 
ings banks  outside  this  state.  If  that  is  not  double  taxation, 
then  let  it  go  as  absolutely  wrong  as  to  what  constitutes  dou- 
ble taxation.  He  said  it  was  the  typical  example  of  double 
taxation.  He  said  it  was  the  same  to  tax  here  my  money  in  a 
Massachusetts  savings  bank,  as  it  is  to  tax  my  horse  in  a 
Massachusetts  pasture.  It  strikes  me  Judge  Doe  is  right,  and 
if  he  was  and  we  are  going  to  strike  it  out,  let  us  find  out 
whether  this  creates  double  taxation.  Let  us  consider  whether 
other  parts  of  this  same  amendment  are  not  authorizing  double 
taxation,  or  authorize  the  legislature  to  create  double  taxation 
and  it  seems  to  me  there  is  doubt  enough  in  this  situation  to 
warrant  us  in  spending  at  least  another  day  or  two  in  thinking 
it  over,  in  secret  if  not  debating  it  here  any  further,  and  I  hope 
the  motion  to  report  this  will  be  debated.  In  short,  1  hope  that 
motion  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff.—I  hope  the  resolution  to  report  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton  will  not  pre- 
vail at  this  time,  for  this  reason.  There  are  several  amend- 
ments, I  believe,  that  are  in,  all  covering  the  subject  of  taxa- 
tion. Now  Resolution  No.  33  is  broader  than  any  other  resolu- 
tion oifered.  It  includes  practically  every  other  amendment, 
and  if  it  were  adopted  it  would  make  unnecessary  any  vote 
upon  the  other  amendments,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  logical 
way  to  go  about  the  voting  is  to  take  first  the  broadest  amend- 
ment that  is  offered  and  consider  that,  and  then  take  up  in 
turn  the  others. 


218    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — I  hope  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  g-entleman  from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Boynton,  will  not  be 
adopted.  In  that  amendment  we  find  the  words  "except  wild 
and  forest  lands."  In  the  amendment  as  proposed  by  Mr. 
Mitchell  of  Concord  the  words  "g-rowing  wood  and  timber"  are 
substituted.  The  langnag-e  of  the  Mitchell  amendment  seems 
more  apt  to  express  the  intention  of  the  friends  of  the  resolu- 
tion and  was  adopted  after  a  conference  with  Mr.  Fellows,  who 
introduced  the  first  resolution. 

The  proposed  change  in  the  language  of  the  original  resolu- 
tion is  important.  The  words  "wild  land"  have  been  construed 
by  the  court  and  have  a  limited  meaning,  while  the  words 
"forest  lands"  are  generally  construed  to  refer  only  to  large 
tracts  of  timber  land.  It  is  intended  to  cover  the  small  tract 
of  growing  timber  that  may  have  been  sometime  connected 
with  tillage  land  as  well  as  the  large  areas  of  forest  lands. 

This  part  of  the  proposed  amendment  is  of  vital  interest  to 
the  farmer  who  has  a  small  tract  of  growing  timber  that  he 
wants'  to  preserve;  it  is  of  interest  to  every  man  who  is  en- 
gaged in  the  summer  hotel  business,  and  to  the  farmer  who 
finds  a  market  for  his  produce  at  such  hotels.  It  is  of  interest 
to  the  large  timber  owners  in  the  state;  and  of  vital  interest 
to  the  manufacturers  who  are  dependent  for  power  upon  a 
steady  flow  of  the  streams  in  New  Hampshire.  It  is  in  the 
line  of  forest  preservation.  We  know  the  state  is  expending  a 
large  sum  of  money  in  the  purchase  of  Crawford  Notch,  and 
the  United  States  government  is  also  spending  large  sums  of 
money  in  the  purchase  of  large  areas  of  forest  land,  in  the 
White  Mountains  and  elsewhere,  in  the  interest  of  forest 
preservation.     This  resolution  is  along  the  same  line. 

The  change  irf  language,  as  proposed  in  the  Boynton  amend- 
ment, touches  all  of  us  who  are  interested  in  the  proposed 
change  in  the  Constitution.  The  words  "growing  wood  and 
timber"  seem  to  express  the  purpose  to  be  gained  better  than 
the  words,   "wild  and  forest  lands." 

I  hope  the  Boynton  amendment  Avill  not  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Bottnton  of  Portsmouth. — I  would  not  object  to  that  sub- 
stitution if  the  gentleman   desires  it. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. — It  seems  to  me,  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  that  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly  for  this  Com- 
mittee at  this  time  to  report  to  the  Convention  a  recommenda- 
tion that  any  particular  amendment  be  agreed  to.  Here  are 
five  or  six,  all  looking  toward  the  same  subject,  and  they  are 
all  open  to  discussion  by  this  Committee  while  in  session.    It 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  219 

is  a  very,  very  important  thing  indeed  that  if  the  Convention 
is  to  propose  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  regarding  the 
taxation  of  property,  it  should  be  put  in  the  right  shape,  so 
that  when  it  goes  to  the  people,  the  people  may  know  what 
they  are  voting  upon,  and  the  officers  of  the  state,  both  execu- 
tive and  judicial,  may  know  what  the  people  have  voted  on  af- 
terwards. Now  there  seem  to  be  here  two  propositions,  or 
three  propositions.  One  is  that  the  legislature  shall  be  al- 
lowed to  classify  intangibles;  another,  that  the  legislature  shall 
be  allowed  to  classify  growing  wood  and  timberland,  and  the 
third  that  the  legislature  shall  be  allowed  to  impose  a  tax  upon 
the  income  of  various  intangibles. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  instead  of  making  a  motion  and 
passing  it  in  this  Committee,  that  we  recommend  to  the  Con- 
vention that  the  proposed  amendments  to  the  Cons,titution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton,  as  amended  by  Judge  Mitchell 
of  Concord,  be  agreed  to;  or  that  the  proposed  amendment  of 
Mr.  Boj^nton  of  Portsmouth  be  substituted  for  them,  and  then 
recommend  that  to  the  Convention,  so  that  when  we  get 
into  the  Convention  the  vote  will  be,  shall  we  agree  to  this  and 
submit  this  to  the  people,  another  course  is  preferable.  I  do 
not  think  that  is  the  way  to  go  to  work.  Here  are,  as  I  say, 
these  amendments.  Now  it  is  pretty  easy  to  make  a  motion 
which  will  bring  before  this  Convention  just  what  everybody 
wants  to  find  out,  and  that  is,  is  the  Committee  in  favor  of 
giving  to  the  legislature  the  opportunity,  if  in  its  judgment  it 
sees  fit  to  do  so,  to  classify  intangibles,  growing  wood  and 
timber,  and  impose  a  tax  upon  the  income  from  intangibles.  It 
seems  to  me  that  if  the  two  motions  which  are  before  the 
Committee  could  be  withdrawn,  and  another  motion  made  that 
it  is  the  sense  of  this  Committee  that  the  legislature  be  given 
the  power  to  classify  intangibles  and  growing  wood  and  tim- 
ber, and  to  impose  an  income  tax  upon  the  income  from  in- 
tangibles, then  we  have  got  the  thing  where  the  Committee  is 
recommending  something.  Then  if  that  motion  should  pre- 
vail,— I  don't  know  whether  it  will  or  not, — but  if  it  should  be 
the  opinion  of  the  Committee  that  it  is  advisable  to  give  these 
powers  to  the  legislature,  then  this  Committee  can  report  to 
the  Convention  all  these  proposed  amendments,  with  the  rec- 
ommendation to  the  Convention  that  the  whole  matter  be 
referred  to  the  proper  Standing  Committee  with  instructions 
to  that  Committee  to  report  back  to  the  Convention,  as  soon 
as  possible,  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  will  em- 
body the   things   which   the   Committee   here   have  voted  they 


220     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

want  to  give  to  the  legislature  the  power  to  do:  and  it  seems 
to  me  if  the  two  motions  made  could  be  withdrawn  and  a 
motion  made  whereby  we  can  get  an  expression  of  opinion  here, 
we  shall  get  along  much  faster  and  the  thing  will  be  in  shape 
where,  when  we  get  into  Convention,  we  can  have  something 
tangible  to  vote  upon,  rather  than  to  have  all  these  things  to 
consider  together. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — ^My  motion  was  for  the  purpose 
of  accomplishing  the  very  object  which  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  has  suggested.  I  realize  that  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  questions  before  it  are  not  only  open 
for  discussion,  but  they  are  open  for  amendment.  Resolu- 
tion No.  5,  introduced  by  Mr.  Fellows,  and  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  is  the 
only  thing  there  is  before  this  Committee  touching  an  amend- 
ment. Now  I  understand  that  this  Committee  can  make  any 
amendments  or  changes  they  desire,  and  when  they  rise  and 
report  to  the  Convention,  the  report  would  be  that  they  have 
had  under  consideration  the  several  resolutions,  and  direct  the 
Chairman  to  report  back  the  recommendation.  Therefore, 
they  have  something  in  shape,  and  it  then  goes  to  the  Stand- 
ing Committee,  and  they  can  put  it  in  form  to  suit  the  wishes 
of  the  Convention.  My  motion  accomplishes  just  the  same  as 
what  has  been  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester, 
Mr.  Jones.  It  is  only  to  get  something  into  shape  to  report 
a  recommendation  to  the  Convention.  I  am  not  particular 
about  how  that  is  reached.  My  motion  was  simply  to  reach 
it  according  to  the  ordinary  parliamentary  rule  and  manage- 
ment of  Committees  of  the  Whole,  but,  if  it  is  desired,  and  our 
President  wishes  that  I  should  withdraw  that  motion,  I  will 
do  it.  I  made  it  in  order  that  we  might  accomplish  the  work 
some  time  in  the  course  of  the  next  month  or  two,  about  a 
question  we  are  discussing  here  at  random,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  a  motion  simply  to  embody  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  to  the  original 
Resolution  No.  5,  will  bring  it  in  shape  for  us  to  recommend 
just  what  we  have  done  here. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  withdrew  his  amendment  to 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  of  Man- 
chester,— 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  withdrew  his  motion. 


Thursday,  June  13,  191tJ.  221 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. — Mr.  Chairman,  inasmuch  as  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  and  the  proposed 
amendment  thereto  of  the  g-entleman  from  Portsmouth,  is 
withdrawn,  I,  for  the  purpose  of  getting-  the  thing  before  the 
Convention,  desire  to  offer  a  resolution. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion:— 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Committee  that  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  state  be  submitted  'to 
the  people  which  will  give  to  the  legislature  the  right  'to 
classify  intangibles  and  growing  wood  and  timber,  for  the 
purposes  of  taxation,  and  to  make  reasonable  exemptions,  and 
further,  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  from  intangible 
property.  , 

Question  being  on  'the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester, — 

Mr.  Young  of  Laccmla. — It  is  apparent  to  my  mind  that  there  are 
differences  of  opinion  upon  the  three  subjects  which  have  been 
submitted  here.  I  find  some  members  of  the  Convention  are 
in  favor  of  classifying  intangibles,  and  are  not  in  favor  of 
classifying  timberland,  and  I  have  thought  that  possibly  that 
opinion  obtains  among  other  members,  and  therefore  I  would 
ask  if  it  would  not  be  well  to  take  a  vote  upon  these  three 
separate  propositions,  that  is,  individual  votes  upon  each 
proposition,  as  to  whether  it  is  the  majority  sentiment  that 
we  classify  timberlands,  and  then  if  it  is  the  majority  senti- 
ment that  we  classify  intangibles,  and  if  it  is  the  majority 
sentiment  that  we  recommend  the  income  tax.  Some  would 
vote  in  favor  of  one  who  would  not  vote  in  favor  of  another. 

Mr.  Hohbs  of  Wolfeboro. — Mr.  Chairman,  to  get  to  this  matter 
very  quickly  and  clarify  the  air:  There  are  several  of  these 
resolutions  here.  Two  of  them  I  introduced.  I  have  not  had 
an  opportunity  to  examine  all  of  them.  I  went  to  my  attor- 
neys and  told  them  what  I  wanted,  and  they  drew  them  up. 
I  have  not  examined  them,  and  do  not  know  that  they  are  just 
right   (drawn  as  thej'  should  be). 

There  is  a  differe,nce  of  opinion  as  to  where  we  may  stop. 
I  think  that  some  of  us  who  have  introduced  these  resolutions, 
and   others  who   are   particularly  interested,  can   get   together 


222    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

and  agree  to  put  some  of  them  into  the  waste  basket  without 
any  discussion. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  also  think  that  we  have  not 
analyzed  these  matters  to  the  extent  that  we  should  to  make 
any  recommendations  at  this  time,  and  I  hope  we  may  be  able 
to  g*et  at  this  matter  by  conferring-  and  agree  upon  some  con- 
certed action.  Many  of  us  here  w'ho  are  in  the  same  line,  and 
desire  the  same  results,  could  get  together.  It  will  be  a  sav- 
ing of  time  and  discussion  if  we  can  do  this  and  agree  on  some 
thlng-s  and  not  be  in  a  squabble  on  all. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — It  seems  to  me  the  resolution 
offered  by  the  g-entleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  will 
cure  all  of  our  troubles.  That  is  a  resolution  which  will 
naturally  leave  the  whole  matter  to  a  standing  committee, 
where  they  can  hear  the  different  views.  It  can  be  discussed 
there,  and  they  can  formulate  some  resolution  or  amendment 
covering  the  point  which  we  are  now  discussing*.  It  seems  to 
me,  to  save  time,  it  would  be  better  for  us  to  recommend  to  the 
Convention  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  and  get  it  before  the  Standing  Commit- 
tee, where  undoubtedly  it  can  be  brought  into  shape  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all  those  who  have  introduced  the  several  resolu- 
tions. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — The  motion  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester  isn't  made,  as  I  understand  It,  to  cirt  off 
discussion.  The  whole  purpose  of  it  is,  after  we  have  dis- 
cussed this  as  much  as  we  desire,  and  every  man  who  has  a 
proposition,  including  my  friend  from  Wolfeboro,  has  an  op- 
portunity to  explain  it,  that  we  may  then  have  something 
tangible  to  vote  upon,  and  we  can  go  on  with  this  discussion 
under  that  motion  until  it  comes  time  for  dinner  and  then  take 
a  recess,  as  we  did  yesterday,  and  come  in  and  vote  upon  it. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. — That  was  precisely  the  object  I  had 
in  view  when  I  introduced  the  resolution,  and  that  was  to  get 
a  proposition  definitely  before  this  Committee  for  you  to  talk 
about  and  consider.  You  have  got  something  now  that  is 
definite. 

Mr.  Craioford  of  Manchester. — A%  I  understand  it,  we  recom- 
mend that  this  matter  will  go  to  a  Standing  Committee  and 
then  that  Standing  Committee  makes  its  rejDort,  and  it  is  then 
within  the  province  of  the  Convention  to  refer  it  again  to  this 
Committee  of  the  Whole  and  we  shall  have  something  to  talk 
about. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. — I  will  try  to  make  it  as  plain  as  pos- 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  223 

sible.  If  the  motion  which  I  have  made  is  adopted,  this  Com.- 
mittee  will  have  said  that  it  is  it's  opinion  that  the  Convention 
oug-ht  to  submit  to  the  people  of  the  state  a  proposed  amend- 
ment which  will  give  to  the  legislature  the  power  to  classify 
intangible  property  and  growing  wood  and  timberland,  and 
impose  a  tax  upon  the  income  from  intangible  property.  Then 
if  the  Committee  votes  that  way,  it  will  be  proper,  and  some 
gentleman  w^ould  make  a  motion,  that  this  Committee  rise  and 
make  report  to  the  Convention  that  it  has  come  to  that  con- 
clusion and  recommends  that  all  the  matters,  all  the  proposed 
amendments  relating  to  taxation,  be  referred  to  the  Standing 
Committee  appropriate  for  the  purpose,  with  instructions  to 
report  back  to  the.  Convention  a  proposed  amendment  of  the 
Constitution  which  will,  if  adopted  by  the  people,  give  the 
legislature  the  power  which  you  decide  you  want  them  to  have, 
and  then  there  will  be  no  more  need  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  after  that,  but,  upon  the  question  of  agreeing  to  the 
proposed  amendment  which  the  Standing  Committee  may 
bring  before  the  House,  there  ^vill  be  ample  opportunity  for 
debate  in  the  Convention  and  chances  for  the  yeas  and  nays 
to  be  called  on  any  amendment  or  amendments  that  may  be 
offered,  and  upon  the  final  passage,  and  we  may  have  a  full, 
free,  fair  discussion  in  the  Convention,  if  we  fail  to  get  all  we 
want  here,  and  everybody  will  be  taken  care  of.  And  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Committee  is  not  of  the  opinion  that  the 
legislature  should  be  given  these  powers,  then  you  will  report 
back  that  fact  to  the  Convention,  and  then  recommend  what- 
ever you  see  fit  to  do  upon  that. 

Now  I  hope  it  is  all  plain.  This  motion  which  I  have  made 
before  the  Committee  is  here  for  discussion.  Do  you  want 
to  give  the  legislature  this  power  or  don't  you  want  to  give  it? 
Now  any  man  who  wants  to  give  it  can  speak  in  favor  and 
any  man  Avho  does  not  want  it  can  speak  against,  and  he  is 
talking  to  the  motion  which  I  have  made.  And  if  no  other 
gentleman  will  make  the  motion  that  it  is  the  sense  of  the 
Committee  it  will  give  the  legislature  these  powers,  I  will  un- 
dertake to  make  a  motion  which  will  cover  the  proper  report 
of  the  Committee  to  the   Convention. 

Mr.  Broderick  of  Manchester. — iMr.  Chairman,  I  find  myself  in 
this  difficulty.  Supposing  we  adopt  the  resolution  just  sub- 
mitted by  the  gentleman  from  -Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  and  w^e 
proceed  to  vote  upon  that  resolution  and  adopt  it.  How  may 
those  of  us  who  do  not  favor  opening  the  door  to  classification 
of  property,   but  do    favor   an  income   tax   on  intangibles,    ex- 


224     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

press  our  opinion?     If  the  resolution  passes,  shall  we  not  have 
to  reconsider  the  vote  we  shall  have  just  taken? 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — If  we  should  vote  on  the  entire  ques- 
tion, and  it  should  be  referred  to  a  Standing  Committee,  and 
that  Standing-  Committee  following  the  instructions  of  the  Con- 
vention, should  report  all  three  of  these  j)ropositions, — then 
it  is  in  the  power  of  any  member  of  the  Convention,  when 
that  report  is  presented,  to  move  to  strike  out  any  one  of 
them.     Do  I  make  it  clear? 

Mr.  BrodetHck  of  Manchester. — ^Yes,  that  amounts  to  a  reconsid- 
eration of  the  action  taken  here. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — ^Not  at  all.  You  simply  move  to 
strike  out  or  to  amend. 

Mr.  Qulmhy  of  Concord. — It  seems  to  me 'there  are  so  many 
differences  of  opinion, — we  have  three  questions  submitted  by 
the  Convention  before  this  Committee  for  consideration,  three 
distinct  questions, — that  while  the  Committee  is  in  session,  we 
ought  to  consider  the  question  intelligently  so  we  can  all  un- 
derstand what  we  want  to  do,  if  it  is  possible,  and  to  that  end 
that  the  question  should  be  divided  so  as  to  g^t  expression  of 
the  Committee  on  each  proposition.  If  we  vote  now  and  re- 
port this  back  to  the  Convention,  we  report  on  three  subjects. 
Why  not  allow  the  Convention  to  consider  each  one  separately, 
so  we  can  understand  what  we  are  voting  on  and  what  we  are 
doing. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — That  is  just  what  the  Convention 
will  be  able  to  do  if  we  adopt  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  'Manchester,  Mr.  Jones.  We  are  in  Committee  now,  not 
in  Convention.  His  proposition  is,  this  Committee  do  rise,  if 
the  resolution  is  adopted,  report  it  to  the  Convention;  it  then 
goes  to  the  Standing  Committee  with  instructions  to  bring  in 
these  three  propositions,  but,  when  they  are  brought  in  by 
the  Committee  and  are  before  the  Convention,  we  can  reject 
the  whole,  we  can  defeat,  amend,  discuss,  do  anything  we  please 
with  the  matter  as  a  Convention,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  proper 
place  for  any  division  will  be  when  the  matter  comes  before 
the  Convention.  The  proposition  is  simply  to  get  the  matter 
in  its  three  aspects  before  the  Convention.  This  is  a  Com- 
mittee with   limited   powers   in  the  iliatter. 

Mr.  Hayden  of  Hollis  moved  the  previous  question. 

Question  being,  Shall  the  previous  question  he  ordered, — 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff  raised  the  point  that  the  previous 
question  is  not  in  order. 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  225 

The  Chair  ruled  the  point  well  taken. 

Ques'tion  being  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Man- 
chester,— 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — I  hope  Mr.  Jones  will  withdraw  his 
motion.  We  have  lost  half  an  hour  in  talking-  about  the  ques- 
tion of  procedure.  At  some  time,  the  three  principal  questions 
before  this  body  have  got  to  be  thrashed  out.  It  might  just  as 
well  be  done  now,  while  we  are  in  Committee,  as  to  report  and 
go  to  a  Standing  Committee  and  come  back  here  then  and 
be  talked  about.  There  are  just  three  things  before  this 
Committee.  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landatf  wants  to  cut  out  of  the 
Constitution  any  restriction  relative  to  taxation  of  property  of 
all  kinds,  intangibles  or  anything  else.  That  is  Mr.  Stevens' 
proposition.  It  includes  all  these  others.  His  resolution  is  a 
great  deal  broader  than  the  one  proposed  by  Mr.  Mitchell  and 
myself.  The  difference  between  the  Mitchell  resolution  and 
Mr.  Boynton's  resolution  is  whether  you  will  put  in  the  class 
of  intangibles  to  be  taxed,  stocks  of  corporations.  That  is  the 
only  difference  between  Mr.  Boynton's  and  Mr.  Mitchell's  reso- 
lutions. Now  there  are  the  three  ideas,  the  broad  one  of  Mr. 
Stevens,  the  narrower  one  of  Mr.  Mitchell  and  myself,  and  the 
broader  one  of  Mr.  Boynton.  These  things  can  be  discussed 
here  now,  when  we  are  in  Committee,  and  report  can  be  made 
along  any  of  these  lines,  while  to  go  through  this  formality  of 
reporting  to  the  Convention,  going  to  a  Standing  Committee, 
coming  back  and  all  being  discussed  again,  seems  to  me  a 
loss  of  time.  If  we  go  right  on,  Mr.  Stevens  can  make  his 
argument,  and  the  others  can  argue  their  propositions,  and 
then  we  have  the  three  phases  of  the  question  before  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  Henneberry  of  Concord. — As  I  understand  it,  this  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  is  not  confined  to  the  discussion  of  the  merits 
of  this  particular  amendment  i^resented  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell.  If  that  is  the  case,  why  should 
the  other  gentlemen  who  have  proposed  amendments  to  this 
Constitution,  be  denied  the  right  of  having  their  proposed 
amendments  discussed  b}'  this  Committee  of  the  Whole? 

The  Chmrman. — The  Chair  will  state  that  nobody  is  denied 
the  right  to  discuss. 

Mr.  Whittemoi'e  of  Dover. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the 
Committee,  I  have  listened  attentively,  for  the  last  thirty 
minutes,   thinking   that   the    members,   if   there  was   a  disposi- 


226    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

tion  to  discuss  this  proposition  further,  would  go  back  to  the 
issues  contained  in  the  resolution,  and  continue  the  discussion, 
but  instead  of  discussing-  the  merits  of  the  question  they  have 
devoted  the  time  to  the  discussion  of  the  parliamentary  situ- 
ation and  a  discussion  of  parliamentarj^  procedure.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  Convention  would  make  more  progress  if  the 
resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr. 
Jones,  was  adopted,  and  that  the  Committee  to  whom  the  same 
is  referred  formulate  a  resolution  embodying  the  different 
propositions,  report  the  same  to  the  Convention,  then  the  dif- 
ferent propositions  can  be  discussed  separately  or  collectively, 
and  be  amended  to  conform  to  the  sentiment  of  a  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Whittemore  of  Dover  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
now  proceed  to  take  a  vote  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of 
Manchester. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — That  motion  isn't  necessary  and  I 
should  hope  that  it  would  not  prevail  if  it  were  necessary. 
There  are  several  gentlemen  who  desire  to  be  heard  upon  this 
question,  and  they  can  Just  as  well  be  heard  with  this  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  pending,  as  they  can 
be  heard  any  other  way.  All  that  it  needs  is  for  somebody  to 
get  the  atiention  of  the  Chair  and  proceed  to  the  discussion 
of  the  main  question. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — All  I  wished  was  to  have  a  chance  to 
discuss  the  different  propositions  before  the  full  Committee, 
and  I  did  fear  a  little  that  if  this  matter  was  referred  now  to 
the  Standing  Committee,  and  that  Committee  discussed  it,  and 
the  report  of  that  Committee  came  back  at  the  verj'  end  of 
the  Convention,  when  time  was  short  and  our  money  was  all 
gone,  and  we  had  adopted  a  five  minute  rule  and  the  previous 
question  was  in  order,  that  a  good  many  men  who  want  to 
be  heard  here,  and  heard  at  as  much  length  as  other  men  who 
have  addressed  the  Committee  on  these  questions,  would  be 
shut  out.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  say  what  I  have  to  say 
here  and  now,  and  if  it  is  in  order  I  will  proceed  with  my  re- 
marks. 

Mr.  Whittemore  of  Dover. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  made  that  motion 
for  the  purpose  of  starting  some  man  in  with  this  discussion. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whi'ttemore  of 
Dover, — 

Mr.  Whittemore  of  Dovfr  witlidrcw  hi>  Miotion. 


Thursd^%  June  13,  1912.  227 

Question  being  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Man- 
chester,— 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff.—^^lr.  Chairman,  I  have  been  ready  at 
any  moment  to  discuss  the  question.  I  wish  to  discuss  parti- 
cularly Kesolution  No.  33.  That  resolution,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Tilton  sug-g-ests,  if  adopted  by  the  Convention  and  adopted 
by  the  people,  would  confer  upon  the  legislature  very  ^  wide 
powers  on  the  question  of  taxation.  It  would  not  remove  all 
restrictions.  There  would  be  three  restrictions  upon  the  tax- 
ing power.  One  is  that  my  resolution  retains  the  word 
"reasonable."  The  legislature  shall  have  power  to  levy  reason- 
able taxes.  The  other  restriction  upon  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature to  levy  taxes  is  contained  in  the  Bill  of  Rig-hts  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  will  still  be  there  after  this 
amendment  is  adopted,  if  it  is  adopted,  and,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Concord  has  pointed  out,  there  is  a  further  restriction 
upon  the  taxing-  power  of  any  state,  and  that  is  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
says  no  man's  property  shall  be  taken  away  from  him  without 
due  process  of  law,  so  that  this  amendment,  though  wide,  and 
intended  to  be  wide,  and  intended  to  confer  power  upon  the 
leg-islature,  is  subject  to  certain  restrictions. 

Now  the  special  commission  appointed  by  the  Governor  vo 
investigate  the  question  of  taxation  in  this  state,  made  a  thor- 
ough investigation  and  report  of  the  question  and  in  that  re- 
port they  pointed  out  that  there  were  certain  inequalities  in 
the  law  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  in  the  practical 
application  of  that  law,  that  were  due  to  constitutional  re- 
strictions, and  to  cure  those  inequalities  it  would  be  necessary 
to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  state.  Now  I  want  to  point 
out  first,  what  those  constitutional  resrictions  were,  and  how 
they  prevented  equal  taxation. 

The  Constitution,  as  orig-inally  adopted,  provided  that  taxes 
should  be  proportional.  The  Constitution  specified  that  taxes 
might  be  upon  persons  and  estates.  Now  the  Court  ruled  that 
to  state  in  the  Constitution  what  might  be  taxed,  excluded  all 
other  property.  Consequently,  the  only  subjects  of  taxation 
in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  are  estates,  property,  and  polls. 
They  further  ruled  that  the  word  "proportional"  meant  that  all 
property  must  be  assessed  alike.  Now  at  the  time  that  Con- 
stitution was  made,  and  the  time  that  the  Court  began  to 
put  Liiat  interpretation  and  that  restriction  upon  the  power 
of  the   legislature,   saying   to  the  legislature,   "You   must  ireai 


228     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

all  property  absolutely  alike,  without  regard  to  its  kind  or 
nature,"  at  that  time  what  was  the  actual  condition  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire?  Practically  all  the  taxable  property 
consisted  of  live  stock,  farms  and  village  property.  The  tim- 
ber lands  of  this  state  were  worth  absolutely  nothing.  Tim- 
ber was  worth  nothing.  There  was  not  a  corporation  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  there  was  not  a  savings  bank,  an  in- 
surance company,  a  railroad,  an  express  compan3%  or  a  large 
corporation  doing  business.  Now,  within  100  j-ears  we  have 
developed  an  entirely  new  class  of  property,  complex,  and  diffi- 
cult to  estimate,  and  we  have  attempted  here  for  years  to  tax 
that  kind  of  property  under  the  restrictions  laid  down  125  years 
ago,  and  under  the  narrow  interpretation  put  by  the  Courts 
upon  the  powers  of  the  legislature,  and  every  inequalitj'  in  our 
tax  laws  today  springs  from  the  fact  that  the  people  have  not 
had  full  power  to  tax  property.  They  have  not  had  the  power 
-  to  deal  with  the  situation  as  it  exists.  Furthermore,  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Courts  are  full  of  inconsistencies. 

The  Court  decided  that  a  tax  on  stock  was  double  taxation, 
and  consequently  unconstitutional.  That  same  Court  declared 
that  a  tax  upon  a  mortgage  note  and  a  bond  was  double  taxa- 
tion, but  nevertheless  constitutional.  A  tax  upon  a  bond  or 
note  or  upon  a  stock  is  double  taxation.  The  Court,  during 
the  very  last  session  of  the  legislature,  rendered  this  deci- 
sion: they  said  that  the  legislature  had  no  power  to  classify  in- 
tangibles and  tax  them  at  a  low,  flat  rate.  Yet  in  spite  of  that 
decision  there  has  been  a  law  enforced  in  this  state  for  years 
taxing  savings  bank  deposits  three-quarters  of  one  per  cent. 
That  is  a  fixed,  flat  rate,  and  savings  bank  deposits  are  cer- 
tainly intangibles.  No  one  can  read  the  decisions,  and  tell  how 
the  Court  are  likely  to  decide  the  next  tax  question  That  is 
put  up  to  them. 

As  the  gentleman  from  Concord  states,  the  last  Constitu- 
tional Convention  thought  they  had  adopted  an  amendment 
that  would  allow  the  legislature  to  levy  a  graded  inheritance 
tax.  The  last  legislature  had  under  consideration  such  a  bill, 
and  there  was  doubt  whether  we  had  the  power,  and  the 
Supreme  Court  were  asked  that  particular  question,  whether 
we  had  the  power,  and  after  considering  the  question  for  some 
time  they  sent  back  this  answer:  "We  find  ourselves  unable  to 
agree."  So  that  neither  the  legislature  nor  the  Court  knows 
today  where  we  stand  on  the  question  of  having  a  graduated 
inheritance  tax. 

Now  my  proposition   proposes  to  cut  out  all   restrictions   on 
taxation   except   one,    the   word    "reasonable,"    and   the    protec- 


Thursday,  Juxne  13,  1912.  22^ 

tion  of  property  in  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. Every  arg-ument  that  has  been  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord  in  favor  of  classifying  timberland  can  be 
made  in  favor  of  my  amendment,  because  under  my  resolution 
you  can  classify  timberlands.  Under  this  amendment  you  can 
classify  bonds  and  notes  if  you  see  fit.  The  legislature  can  put 
an  income  tax  upon  stocks  or  bonds,  or  any  other  form  of  in- 
vestment. The  legislature  can  pass  other  law^s  for  which  the 
other  amendments  do  not  provide. 

Some  years  ago  the  legislature  of  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire passed  this  law:  "All  express  companies  shall  pay  a  tax 
into  the  state  treasury  of  two  per  cent  upon  their  gross 
revenue."  Now,  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  man  who  will 
dispute  this  statement,  that  this  is  the  fairest  and  easiest  and 
best  way  to  tax  an  express  company.  What  man  is  there  here 
who  can  tell  what  the  property  of  an  express  company  is  worth? 
They  have  little  property, — actual,  tangible  property.  They 
use  the  property  of  the  railroad,  and  the  most  valuable  asset 
that  an  express  company  owns  is  its  exclusive  contract  with  a 
railroad  to  do  an  express  business  over  it.  How  is  a  man  go- 
ing to  weigh  that  kind  of  property?  Can  you  value  it  in  the 
same  way  you  can  a  cow  or  a  horse?  Under  this  amendment 
as  I  have  drawn  it,  the  legislature  could  not  only  tax  insur- 
ance companies  and  express  companies  upon  their  gross  re- 
ceipts, but  it  could  deal  with  the  railroad  tax  by  a  much  more 
sensible  method  than  is  now  provided  by  the  state, — not  only 
provided,  but  made  absolutely  necessary  by  the   Constitution. 

At  the  present  time,  every  assessment  made  by  the  state 
upon  the  railroad  can  be  questioned.  In  order  to  find  out 
what  the  railroad  property  should  be  assessed,  the  Court  muf^t 
find  out  how  much  every  other  class  of  property  in  the  whole 
state  is  assessed.  In  the  last  contest  over  taxation,  the  coun- 
sel for  the  railroad  stated  before  the  legislative  committee 
that  the  railroad  had  spent  over  $75,000  preparing  its  case. 
They  had  experts  in  every  town  and  city  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  finding  out  how  much  stock  in  trade,  timberland, 
farms,  horses  and  cows  were  taxed.  In  order  to  meet  any 
such  case  as  that,  ^vith  a  fair  show  at  all,  the  state  must  send 
experts  all  through  New  Hampshire  to  find  out  how  much 
property  is  taxed.  This  question  can  come  up  on  every  as- 
sessment. That  is  not  a  sensible,  reasonable  way  to  tax  a  rail- 
road company.  A  good  manj'  states  have  adopted  the  plan  I 
have  already  suggested  for  the  taxation  of  express  companies. 
The  best  method  of  taxing  public  service  corporations  is  to  put 


280    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

a  flat,  fixed  rate  upon  their  gross  income.  Tliey_  cannot  dodge 
that  tax.  It  can  be  assessed  bj^  any  one  in  three  minutes, 
and  is  subject  to  no  constitutional  questions,  if  this  amend- 
ment were  adopted.  Their  accounts  alwaj's  show  and  always 
will  have  to  show  what  their  gross  income  is.  The  telephone 
companies,  the  express  companies  and  railroad  companies  are 
required  today  to  keep  their  accounts  in  such  a  way  as  to  show 
what  their  receipts  are  from  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and 
that  report  is  made  out  every  year,  and  a  man  can  sit  down 
with  a  pencil  and  figure  out  the  tax  in  a  few  minutes.  And  now 
in  place  of  that  simple  and  fair  way  to  tax,  we  have  this  com- 
plicated question  of  taxation  of  everybody  else's  property  all 
over  the  state,  creating  a  lawsuit  every  few  years  that  costs 
the  state  and  the  railroads  a  vast  amount  of  money. 

Now  this  amendment  strikes  out  of  the  Constitution  the 
word  "proportional."  That  is  a  vague  word  under  any  circum- 
stances. It  is  pretty  hard  work  to  say  what  "proportional" 
means,  and  when  j'^ou  have  read  the  decision  of  the  Court  about 
it  you  won't  get  a  great  deal  of  light.  It  has  been  interpreted 
to  mean  that  all  property  must  be  treated  alike.  That  word 
has  caused  trouble,  and  consequentlj'-  in  my  proposed  amend- 
ment, it  is  struck  out,  and  all  the  Constitution  would  say  about 
taxation  in  Article  5  would  be  this:  "The  General  Court  has 
power  to  impose  and  levy  reasonable  assessments,  rates  and 
taxes."     I  believe  they   ought  to  have  that   power. 

Furthermore,  it  would  strike  out  of  Article  6,  Part  Second, 
the  part  that  now  enumerates  the  things  that  may  be  taxed. 
It  cuts  that  out,  and  substitutes  therefor  these  words:  "The 
public  charges  of  government  or  any  part  thereof,  may  be 
raised  by  taxation."  That  far  it  is  just  the  same.  Now  I  stop 
there,  and  by  stopping  there  it  means  that  the  legislature  can 
tax  any  kind  of  property  it  sees  fit,  that  is  reasonable,  and  not 
in  violation  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  or  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  It  leaves  our  hands  free  to  deal  with  these  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  property  in  a  way  that  will  be  fair,  and  a  way 
that  the  tax  can  be  collected.  If  the  amendments  should  all 
be  adopted,  our  Constitution,  instead  of  being  a  general  grant 
of  power,  would  be  one  long  list  of  possible  tax  laws,  and  we 
have  been  discussing  a  great  many  of  these  questions  here,  not 
as  if  we  were  a  Constitutional  Convention,  but  as  if  we  were  a 
legislature. 

I  personally  would  vote  to  give  the  legislature  power,  if  it 
saw  fit,  to  pass  certain  tax  laws,  which,  if  I  were  a  member  of 
the  legislature,  I  should  vote  against.    I  do  not  believe  in  re- 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  231 

stricting  the  powers.  I  do  not  believe  you  can  get  any  re- 
sults from  anybody  or  anything-  unless  j^ou  give  them  adequate 
power.  The  restrictions  of  the  Federal  Constitution  and  the 
further  restriction  or  safety  that  lies  in  intelligence,  and  the 
insight  and  fairness  of  the  people  of  Xew  Hampshire,  is  a  far 
greater  protection  from  unjust  taxes  than  arbitrary  restric- 
tions put  in  a  Constitution.  This  amendment,  I  believe,  would 
do  more  to  clear  up  the  whole  subject  of  taxation  than  any 
other  amendment  offered.  It  has  caused  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  more  trouble  in  the  past, — the  restriction  of  the 
Constitution, — questions  of  taxation  have  been  taken  to  the 
Courts  oftener  than  any  other  questions,  and  the  decisions 
are  more  inconsistent  than  they  are  probably  on  any  other 
matter  in  our  Constitution  or  before  our  Courts. 

I  think  the  only  argument  that  can  be  made  against  this 
amendment,  is  that  it  is  too  broad.  That  is  the  argument  that 
will  be  made,  that  it  opens  the  door  wide.  I  believe,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  is  the  strongest  argument  in  favor  of  it.  We 
have  been  going  along  here  for  years  trying  to  ^eal  wdth  the 
difficult  subject  of  taxation  and  the  complex  questions  of 
property  with  our  hands  tied,  being  able  to  move  them  just  a 
little.  Loosen  the  bands  and  allow  the  legislature  to  levy 
taxes  that  are  reasonable,  and  I  believe  we  will  have  a  very 
much  better  sj'stem  of  taxation  than  we  have  at  present. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  George  W.  FowJer  of  Pembroke,  the 
Committee  took  a  recess  until  1.55  o'clock. 

After  Eecess. 

The  question  being  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jone^  of 
Manchester, — 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter. — 'As  I  understand  it,  the  purpose  of  the 
motion  which  is  now  before  us  was,  or  its  effect  is,  to  enable 
everybody  to  speak  on  every  subject  that  is  embraced  in  any 
of  these  tax  amendments  proposed,  and  I  do  not  propose  to 
exercise  that  license  to  its  utmost  limit.  I  do  wish  to  make 
two  or  three  suggestions,  good  or  bad,  and  the  bad  ones  will 
not  receive  any  acceptance  in  this  body,  I  am  sure.  The  last 
speaker, —  unless  somebody  spoke  after  I  started  for  lunch, — 
was  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  who  advanced 
substantially  the  abolition  of  all  limitations  of  tax  power  of 
the    legislature, — all   limitation    except   what   we    have   without 


232     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

any  legislative  act.     That  is,  lie  says  he  would  let  the  legisla- 
ture impose  such  taxes  as  the  legislature  might  see  fit,  classify 
as  they  see  fit,  exempt  as  they  see  fit;    that  may  not  be  the 
exact  wording  of   his   amendment,   but   that  is   the   substance. 
We  have  lived  thus  far  under  a  system  involving  a  written  Con- 
stitution containing  limitations  upon  the  power  of  the  legisla- 
ture   because   it    is   thought    there    should   be   some   limitation, 
because   of  the  danger  that  the  legislators  possibly  might  do 
something,  inadvertently,   or   otherwise,  which  they  ought  not 
to  do.    And  yesterday  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  was  here 
advocating   a    plan   under   which    every    act    of    the    legislature 
would  be  subjected,  or  could  be  subjected,  to  a  popular  vote, 
and  he  said  he  wanted  it,  because  the  legislators  do  things  they 
ought  never  to  have  done,  and  he  instanced  some  things  they 
have  done,  which  he  disapproved.     Some  of  the  things  he  disap- 
proved,   I    might   not;    some    of    the    things    I    disapproved,    he 
might  not;  but  the  fact  remains  that  legislators,  like  all  other 
bodies  of  human  beings,  do  commit  errors,  and  do  things  which 
they  themselves  afterwards  wish  they  had   not  done.     And   it  ' 
is    also    a    fact    that    whatever    Constitutional    limitations    j^ou 
have  should  be  written.     You  may  have  prescribed  limitations 
which  the  legislature  shall  not  transcend,  the  legislature  will 
from  time   to   time   transcend    those  limitations,   and   then   we 
have    recourse    to    the    Courts, — an    expensive    recourse    ordi- 
narily,— to   undo   some  part  of  the  mischief.     Some   suffer  the 
mischief  without  appeal  to   the   Court,  because   it  would  cost 
more  to  get  redress  than  to  suffer,  but  nevertheless  the  Court 
is  supposed  to  furnish  some  remedy  against  wrong  committed 
by  the  legislature,  and  the  Court  can  do  it,  simply  because  we 
have  a  Constitution.     The  Court  can  in  10  way  impose  a  rem- 
edy upon  the  legislature  except  what  the  Constitution  has  im- 
posed.    It   seems   to   be    the   proposition  to   remove   from    the 
legislative    power   all   constitutional   restrictions,    save    such    as 
may  be  implied  by  the  word  "proportional", — a  very  loose  word 
in  our   Constitution, — and   abide   by  the   power  of   the   Federal 
Court   to    undo   any   legislation   which   conflicts   with    the    Fed- 
eral,— the  National  Constitution.     That  the  projyosal  to  abolish 
all  limitation  but  those  two  will  hardly  find  favor  in  a  Conven- 
tion  of   this   character, — because   this    Convention   is   cognizant 
of  the  fact  that  we  ought  to  have  the  Constitution.     We  were' 
not  sent  here  to  abolish  the  Constitution  absolutely,  but  simply 
to  recommend   such   changes  as  we  thought  were  called   for. 
So  I  think  that  the  proposal   of  the  gentleman   from  Landaff, 
probably   will   not   meet   approval   in   the    Convention, — it   does: 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  233 

not  meet  with  mine,  and  I  hope  it  will  not  meet   that   of  the 
others. 

There  are  other  proposals  before  us,  and  one  of  them  is  by 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  in  that  we 
find  specificallj'  conferred  upon  the  legislature  the  power  to 
tax  deposits  made  by  citizens  of  this  state  in  savings  banks 
without  the  state,  and  the  reason  given  for  giving  that  power 
is  that  Massachusetts  treats  her  folks  that  way,  and  therefore 
we  ought  to  treat  our  folks  that  way.  Massachusetts  treats 
her  citizens  that  way,  punishes  them  for  putting  their  money 
in  our  savings  banks,  therefore  we  ought  to  punish  our  citizens 
for  putting  their  money  in  Massachusetts  banks.  A  man  who 
lives  in  Concord,  and  whose  means  are  almost  unlimited,  is  not 
to  be  compared  with  the  old  lady  who  lives  in  South  Hamp- 
ton, and  who  is  within  five  minutes'  walk  of  Amesbury. 
There  is  some  temptation  to  put  her  money  m  a  safe  place, 
that  is  reasonably  accessible.  There  being  no  savings  bank 
nearer  than  Portsmouth  or  Exeter,  unless  she  crosses  the 
Massachusetts  line,  that  imaginary  line  so  near  her  house,  she 
deposits  her  money  in  Amesbury.  She  gets  it  divided  up  be- 
tween Amesbury  and  Xewburyport,  and  she  gets  somewhere 
from  four  per  cent — between  three  and  four  per  cent.  Are 
we  going  to  tell  the  old  lady  because  she  does  not  travel  up 
to  Exeter  or  Portsmouth,  we  will  confiscate  a  part  of  her 
property?  It  is  probably  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  which  limits  the  power  of  the  state  to  tax, — 
limits  it  in  this  way,  at  least, — it  says  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
(shire  has  no  right  to  impose  a  tax  on  properties  which  are  not 
theoretically,  or  otherwise,  wdthin  the  limits  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. We  cannot  tax  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad  upon  its 
coal  in  its  coal  pockets  in  Massachusetts,  nor  can  Massachu- 
setts, if  it  undertakes  such  a  thing,  tax  the  coal  pockets  in 
New  Hampshire.  That  is  a  just  limitation  of  the  tax,  which 
probably  could  be  sustained  under  the  Federal  Constitution, 
provided  the  old  lady  had  the  money  to  invoke  the  protection 
of  the  Courts  of  the  United  States;  but  most  of  the  savings 
banks'  depositors  would  not  have  the  money,  and  they  would 
have  to  take  what  the  legislature  gave  them,  no  matter 
whether  the  action  of  the  legislature  met  with  the  approval 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  and  seemed  to  him  reasonable 
or  not,  unless  a  majority  of  his  colleagues  on  the  bench  hap- 
pened to  concur  that  that  loose  word  "proportional"  should  be 
stripped  from  the  Constitution, — and  protect  her  against  the 
thing  that  is  manifestly  unjust,  although  it  was  authorized  by 


234:    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  amendment  which  he,  himself,  introduced.  I  do  not  think 
that  this  Convention  ought  to  go  ahead  and  specifically  author- 
ize a  thing  so  unjust,  or  a  thing  so  harsh,  as  that.  There  are 
certain  other  proposals  here  that  require  attention,  and  will 
receive  attention  in  due  time;  there  are  several  of  them  com- 
bined in  one  to  be  considered  by  this  Committee.  There  is  a 
proposal  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  an  expert 
on  taxation,  en  taxation  of  all  kinds,  and  on  evasion  of  taxation, 
and  the  way  to  prevent  evasion  of  taxation,  and  the  way  to  get 
the  most  out  of  those  who  should  pay  taxes.  This  amendment 
of  his,  if  I  remember  rightly,  imposes  three  different  methods 
of  taxation.  Three  different  schemes,  one  being  the  taxation, 
the  graded  taxation, — if  I  may  call  it  that, — of  intangibles,  an- 
other the  graded  taxation  or  exemption  of  forest  lands,  wood- 
lands, whatever  it  is, — we  all  know  what  it  means.  It  makes  no 
difference  whether  I  use  th«  correct  word  or  not.  That  is  en- 
tirely dift'erent  from  the  gradation  of  intangibles.  The  third 
is  the  income  tax.  These  are  in  no  sense  so  knit  together  by 
their  nature,  that  they  must  nedessarily  fall  or  stand  together. 
They  are  not  so  closely  bound  together  that  they  ought  to  fall 
or  stand  together.  Perhaps  many  of  us  might  have  serious  ob- 
jection, ill  or  well  founded,  to  an  income  tax,  who  would  very 
much  favor  a  wise  exemption  or  partial  exemption  of  wood- 
lands, growing  wood-lands,  from  taxation.  Many  of  us  might 
favor  the  other,  the  taxation  of  intangibles  by  a  sort  of  graded 
system  of  taxing  them,  according  to  how  much  you  think  you 
can  get.  They  who  would  not  favor  income  tax, — some  would 
perhaps  favor  the  income  tax  and  the  intangible  scheme,  who 
would  not  favor  exempting  the  woodlands,  but  the  three  things 
ought  not  to  be  all  in  one,  and  we  be  compelled  either  to  accept 
them  all  in  a  lump  or  reject  them  all  in  a  lump,  like  a  piece  of 
buttered  bread,  in  which  case  you  have  got  to  take  the  bread 
and  butter  or  go  without  the  bread.  Now  I  understand  that 
these  things  will  be  separated  before  we  are  through  with 
them,  and  as  there  was  an  invitation  extended  to  every  one 
who  had  any  ideas  on  the  subject, — on  any  branch  of  the  sub- 
ject,— to  express  those  ideas,  is  why  I  am  addressing  this  as- 
sembly a  little  bit.  As  to  income  tax  I  say  my  objection  is  not 
that  it  is  not  theoretically  as  just  a  thing  as  could  be  devised, 
but,  in  my  opinion,  an  income  tax,  a  state  income  tax,  is  not 
workable,  and  it  is  subject  to  precisely  the  same  objection  as 
the  system  of  taxation  which  we  are  now  trying  to  change. 
Thirty-odd  years  we  have  had  the  same  laws  on  our  statute 
books  which  have  caused  no  such  squirming  during  the  thirty- 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  235 

odd  years  preceding  this,  as  they  have  during  the  last  month  or 
two  in  this  state,  and  why?  Simply  because  it  had  failed, — the 
selectmen  finding-  that  they  could  not  enforce  it,  the  taxpayers 
being"  bound  it  should  not  be  enforced  ag-ainst  them.  And  it 
being"  a  general  feeling,  I  do  not  say  the  feeling  of  the  major- 
ity, but  a  very  widespread  feeling,  that  the  requiring  of  that 
inventor}'  from  me,  not  from  you  but  from  me,  I  felt  that  it 
was  an  outrage,  not  because  you  are  not  to  be  made  to  return 
an  inventory,  but  because  you  didn't,  or  the  inventory  w^hich 
you  did  return  you  didn't  get  stuck  on  half  as  bad  as  I  did.  A 
law  that  is  not  approved,  that  is  disapproved,  and  is  success- 
fully evaded  by  a  considerable  portion  of  the  community,  is  a 
very  undesirable  law.  It  is  like  a  law  we  used  to  have  here  and 
which  we  have  superceded, — the  liquor  law.  While  we  might 
admit  that  the  prohibitory  liquor  law,  if  enforceable,  would  be 
the  most  excellent  thing  that  could  be  devised  in  the  way  of 
liquor  legislation,  the  most  of  us  thought  the  liquor  law  was  a 
good  thing  to  get  rid  of,  and  we  have  superceded  it,  substi- 
tuting a  different  thing  in  its  place.  The  tax  law  works  the 
same  way  as  the  jjrohibitory  liquor  law,  although  more  so.  It 
is  evaded  by  a  good  many  more  who  feel  that  they  are  justified 
in  evading  it,  some  of  them  because  they  say  it  works  injustice. 
The  whole  scheme  of  taxing  their  bonds  is  an  outrage  anyway, 
and  thej'  ought  not  to  be  required  to  subject  themselves  to 
that  which  is  unjust,  and  others  because  they  say  they  have 
the  same  rights  that  the  others  exercise,  the  right  of  evading 
the  law,  and  our  Supreme  Court  has  solemnly  decided  that  the 
provision  of  our  tax  law,  which  says  a  man  who  has  given  a 
false  inventory  shall  not  have  the  privilege  of  asking 
an  abatement.  That  provision  does  not  apply  to  a  case  of  the 
man  who  undervalued  himself  because,  he  says,  the  other  folks 
were  doing  it.  In  other  words,  the  Court  itself  has  not  enforced 
the  law,  and  it  is  a  law  which  is  not  obeyed  by  the  people  and 
not  enforced  by  the  Court  when  brought  to  their  attention, 
and  which  a  good  many  who  do  obey  it  feel  to  be  a  very  harsh 
law.  The  income  tax  is  open  to  that  objection,  that  it  w^ill  not 
be  respected  by  those  who  can  evade  it,  and  a  state  income  tax 
can  be  evaded  because  you  cannot  find  out, — how  are  you  going 
to  find  out, — what  my  income  is,  unless  you  know  the  property 
from  which  my  income  is  derived.  If  you  can  find  my  bonds 
yielding  four  per  cent  and  good  ones,  you  will  know  how  much 
of  my  income  is  derived  from  them.  If  they  are  in  a  Boston 
savings  deposit  box  and  you  cannot  find  them,  and  I  say  I  have 
not  got  them  and  never  did  have  them,  what  are  you  going  to 


236     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

do  about  it?  When  you  call  for  an  income  tax,  the  men  j'ou 
are  most  after  will  succeed  in  evading  the  law, — part  of  them 
for  the  sake  of  evading-  the  payment  of  the  tax,  which  they  do 
not  want  to  pay  because  it  is  money,  and  they  wish  to  keep  it; 
and  another  part  because  they  do  not  wish  to  make  known 
their  business.  There  are  a  good  many  people  that  object  to 
the  income  tax  because  they  do  object  to  making  their  business 
affairs  public.  I  say  then  that  the  income  tax  is  not  workable, 
and  its  effect  will  be  imjust,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  in- 
cluded in  our  scheme,  and,  as  I  said  a  minute  ago,  I  trust  these 
propositions  will  be  divided  up,  and  acted  upon  separately.  Be- 
fore one  Committee  in  this  Convention  there  is  pending,  unless 
they  have  come  back  to  this  body, — there  is  pending  a  resolu- 
tion to  enable  the  Governor  to  veto  separately  clauses  in  the 
appropriation  bill  that  was  introduced.  The  reason  why  it  was 
introduced  is  plain  enough,  because  in  appropriation  bills  more 
than  in  other  bills, — although  the  same  things  are  possible  in 
bills  of  different  character,  but  especially  in  appropriation 
bills, — it  is  common  to  find  combined  together  a  large  number, — 
here  is  my  pet  scheme,  here  is  yours,  and  here  is  his,  and  his 
and  his,  and  we  will  pull  together,  although  I  say  all  four  of 
these  others  ought  to  be  kicked  out,  mine  ought  to  stand,  but 
mine  is  going  to  topple  over  unless  I  consent  to  yours,  and 
therefore  we  join  forces,  embody  all  our  proposals  in  one  ap- 
propriation bill,  and  force  the  Governor  either  to  accept  the 
whole,  good  and  bad,  or  leave  the  state  without  money  for  cur- 
rent expenses.  To  prevent  this  vicious  practice  is  the  object 
of  allowing  the  Governor  to  veto  different  clauses  in  the  ap- 
propriation bill.  Now  it  is  just  as  bad  to  combine  three  dis- 
tinct propositions  m  regard  to  a  constitutional  amendment, 
which  is  just  as  inherently  an  act  of  legislation,  as  it  is  to  in- 
clude two  or  three  mountain  road  bills  in  one  act  in  order  that 
each  one  of  them  may  prop  up  the  other,  and  sometimes  it  re- 
sults,— sometimes  it  has  been  known  to  result  in  the  case  of  an 
appropriation  bill, — in  the  fall  of  all  the  schemes  that  were  so 
united.  I  don't  think  that  is  so  as  to  these  three  measures  that 
are  combined  in  this  one  bill  here. 

My  opinion  is,  first,  I  am  in  favor  of  two  of  them  in  a  general 
sense,  that  is  to  the  classified  taxation  of  intangibles,  and  also 
giving  the  legislature  power  to  favor  wood-lands,  but  I  am  not 
in  favor  of  an  income  tax,  and  don't  want  to  have  to  vote  in 
favor  of  the  income  tax,  or  else  have  to  vote  against  the  other 
two,  nor  do  I  wish  to  put  anybody  else  in  the  same  dilemma. 
I  want  to  have  these  things  which  are   entirely   distinct   from 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  237 

each  other  considered  separately.  I  have  spoken  in  this  ram- 
bling- way  on  this  hotchpotch  matter  because  nobody  else 
seemed  to  be  tn iking  and  most  of  you  had  not  got  here  to 
hear  what  1  had  to  saj'. 

Mr.  Header  of  Rochester. — I  want  to  speak  in  favor  of  our  Pres- 
ident, Mr.  Jones'  resolution,  and  more  specifically  in  favor  of 
Hesolution  No.  5,  offered  by  Judge  Fellows.  I  wish  to  speak 
about  the  grouting  wood  and  timber  lands.  It  seems  to  me 
that  we  ought  to  be  very  careful  about  opening  the  door  too 
wide  in  regard  to  legislation  on  this  subject.  I  have  been 
studying  our  old  Constitution,  and  I  have  a  tremendous  admira- 
tion for  it,  and  I  think  we  never  ought  to  make  a  change  in  it 
unless  we  see  it  works  some  injustice  or  is  detrimental,  to  the 
interests  of  our  state,  and  I  think  these  three  subjects  that  are 
brought  up'  are  the  only  ones  which  have  been  shown  to  be 
detrimental,  or  to  work  any  injustice.  But  in  the  matter  of 
forest  lands  it  does  work  injustice  to  the  owners  of  these  lands, 
and  also  is  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  our  state,  and  I  wish 
in  just  a  word  to  see  if  I  can  show  that.  You  know  almost 
every  farm  has  a  back  pasture,  or  wood  lot,  that  is  growing  up. 
It  is  considered  scrub  land  and  is  taxed,  has  been  in  the  past 
taxed  in  that  way,  and  there  is  no  particular  value  to  it,  no 
market  value  to  the  lumber  on  it  until  it  reaches  about  the  age 
of  forty  years'  growth,  and  then  all  of  a  sudden  some  match 
comp)any,  or  some  box  lumber  man,  comes  around  and  makes 
an  offer  for  this  small  lumber  at  forty  years  of  age.  The  point 
is  it  is  only  from  6  to  12  inches  in  diameter,  and  is  only  fit  for 
box  lumber,  and  is  just  beginning  to  be  of  interest  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  state, — it  is  just  beginning  to  be  a  beautiful  grove, 
and  to  add  something  to  the  value  of  the  town  where  it  grows, 
— and  so,  as  I  said  before,  the  assessors  usually  tax  it  very 
low  until  about  that  age,  but  when  the  offer  is  made  by  the 
lumberman,  every  one  sees  the  value,  and  the  assessors  see  it 
and  immediately  the  valuation  must  be  put  up  and  the  tempta- 
tion is  overwhelming  for  the  poor  farmer  who  has  had  all  he 
can  do  to  make  a  living  anyway  and  perhaps  is  in  debt, — the 
temptation,  I  say,  to  sell  that  lumber  and  pay  his  mortgage 
and  live  in  ease  is  overwhelming,  if  it  is  to  be  taxed  at  its  full 
value.  If  we  can  take  away  that  temptation,  if  we  can  see  that 
after  forty  years'  growth  it  is  growing  three  times  as  fast  as 
it  was  before  that,  that,  when  the  diameter  of  the  tree  is  twice 
as  great,  the  board  measure  is  increasing  three  times  as  fast, 
and  not  only  that  but  the  value  of  the  lumber  is  increasing, 
for  if  he  leaves  it  until  it  is  70  or  80  years  of  age,  it  will  not  be 


238    Journal  of  Constit[]tional  Convention. 

only  box  lumber,  but  it  will  be  finish  lumber  of  greater  value, 
surely  we  ought  to  let  the  farmer  keep  it  and  get  the  increased 
growth  and  the  increased  valuation  of  the  lumber. 

And  for  the  sake  of  the  tax  collector  and  the  town, — they 
must  be  considered, — the  town  has  got  to  have  an  income, — it 
is  better  also  for  the  town  not  to  have  the  lumber  cut  off  just 
as  it  is  becoming  of  some  value,  just  as  this  valuation  is  put  up. 
Is  it  for  the  interest  of  the  town  to  have  the  lumber  cut  as 
soon  as  it  begins  to  be  valuable  and  get  only  one  or  two  years' 
taxation,  or  to  have  it  grow  for  forty  years  more  and  have  a 
smaller  rate  of  taxation?  If  it  continues  for  forty  years,  will  it 
not  be  better  for  the  assessor  and  the  town,  as  it  is  for  the 
farmer?  And  then  look  at  the  interest  of  the  state.  Among 
our  greatest  assets  in  this  state  are  our  beautiful  pine  lands. 
There  is  nothing  that  adds  more  to  the  beauty  of  the  scenery, 
or  the  health  of  the  summer  resort,  than  the  pine  trees,  the 
pine  groves  of  our  state.  And  do  the  pines  have  any  great 
value  during  the  first  forty  years?  They  have  nothing  to  be 
desired  until  they  get  some  growth,  and  just  when  they  begin 
to  be  a  great  asset  for  the  state,  and  are  working  for  the 
health  of  the  community,  as  well  as  for  a  profit,  tnen  our  temp- 
tation is  to  cut  them  off,  and  get  the  money  on  them.  I  say 
we  ought  to  encourage  people  to  keep  their  pine  growth  until 
it  reaches  the  age  of  eighty  years,  the  growth  from  forty  to 
eighty  is  so  much  better  in  every  respect, — grows  so  much 
faster,— for  the  farmer.  It  gives  the  tax  that  the  town  would 
lose,  and  is  a  beautiful  and  health-giving  asset  to  the  state. 
Now  let  us  remember  that  every  division  of  the  community  is 
benefited  by  keeping  our  pine  forests  until  they  are  at  least 
eighty  years  old,  and,  if  we  have  in  our  Constitution  that 
which  compels  the  poor  man  to  sell  his  lumber  at  forty  years, 
we  lose  all  those  benefits,  and  I  say  that  this  portion  of  our 
Constitution  does  work  injustice  to  the  owners  of  timber  lands, 
to  all  our  farmers,  and  it  is  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
state.  And,  therefore,  I  feel  that  we  are  justified  in  sending 
down  to  the  people  this  proposition  to  amend  our  Constitution 
in  this  respect.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  whole  measure  offered 
by  our  President,  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  but  especially  am 
I  in  favor  of  this  part  of  it  referring  to  growing  wood  and 
forest  lands. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey.—l  take  it  that  this  Constitutional  Con- 
vention will  be  best  satisfied  with  its  work,  if  the  amendments 
which  are  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  state  shall  be 
adopted   by  the   people  when   they   vote   upon   them.     We   have 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  239 

already  voted  to  submit  to  the  people  of  the  state,  Resolution 
No.  6,  which  provides  for  a  graded  inheritance  tax. 

We  have  before  us  at  the  present  time  propositions  which 
will  provide,  if  adopted,  for  allowing  the  legislature  to  classify 
money  at  interest  and  timber  lands  in  various  forms.  We  also 
have  another  proposition,  which  will  allow  the  legislature  to 
tax  incomes. 

Xow  it  is  a  well-recognized  fact  that  the  people  of  this  state 
will  probably  not  adopt  a  great  number  of  amendments,  so  if 
we  wish  to  have  the  amendments,  which  we  submit,  adopted,  it 
will  be  necessary  that  we  make  them  as  few,  as  concise,  and  as 
clear  as  possible.  For  that  reason,  I  stand  here  to  support  the 
resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens, 
allowing  the  legislature  to  deal  with  all  these  questions  as 
they  come  up,  that  we  may  thereby  be  enabled  to  submit  to 
the  people  of  this  state  only  one  amendment,  which  can  be 
easily  understood  by  every  citizen  of  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire,— which  is  that  the  legislature  may  deal  with  questions 
of  taxation  as  the  public  good  requires.  And,  Gentlemen  of  this 
Committee,  none  of  you  who  were  here  yesterday  and  heard  the 
eloquent  pleas  made  for  the  integrity  and  good  sense  of  our 
present  uncontrolled,  representative  form  of  government  would 
ever  hesitate,  I  believe,  to  leave  all  questions  of  taxation  with 
our  very  estimable  legislature. 

I  wish,  however,  to  point  out  to  the  members  of  this  Commit- 
tee that  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr. 
Stevens,  is  in  absolute  line  with  every  taxation  authority  in  the 
United  States  and  for  that  matter  in  the  whole  world;  that  is, 
that  there  should  be  no  restriction  on  the  right  of  the  legis- 
lature to  enact  laws  relating  to  taxation.  We  have  had  pointed 
out  to  us  this  morning  ways  in  which  the  restrictions  on  legis- 
lative power  in  taxation  matters  have  acted  in  the  past  very 
unjusth',  and  instances  have  been  mentioned  where  that  re- 
striction has  acted  unjustly.  We  cannot  foresee  the  future. 
Suppose  we  remove  these  restrictions  to  the  extent  which  is 
suggested  in  Resolutions  No.  5  and  No.  37,  and  allow  the  classifi- 
cation of  certain  classes  of  property,  how  long  will  it  be  before 
injustice  will  appear  in  the  tax  levying  power  under  the  Con- 
stitution, relating  to  other  classes  of  property?  None  of  us  can 
tell.  Suppose  other  injustices  do  appear,  if  we  have  not  left 
the  power  of  taxation  to  the  legislature,  we  must  wait  and 
bear  those  unjust  burdens  until  we  can  have  another  Constitu- 
tional Convention.  B3'  putting  into  the  Constitution  class  after 
class  which  can  be  exempted,  finally  w^e  will  have  a   Constitu- 


240     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

tion  as  long  as  your  arm.  I  believe  that  the  Constitution  should 
contain  just  the  fundamental  facts,  the  plan  of  government, 
and  the  details  should  be  left  to  the  legislature. 

As  I  said  before,  this  is  entirely  in  line  with  all  tax  authori- 
ties of  the  United  States  and  all  over  the  world.  I  hold  in  my 
hand  the  report  of  the  5th  National  Conference  on  Taxation, 
which  says  this:  "The  First  National  Conference  on  state  and 
local  taxation  held  in  1907  at  which  33  states  were  represented 
by  delegates  in  this  way  appointed  by  the  governors  of  the  sev- 
eral states,  unanimously  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

"Whereas,  The  greatest  inequalities  have  arisen  from  laws 
designed  to  tax  all  the  \videly  differing  classes  of  property  in 
the  same  way  and  such  laws  have  been  ineffective  in  the  pro- 
duction of  revenue;  and 

"Whekeas,  The  appropriate  taxation  of  various  forms  of 
property  is  rendered  impossible  by  the  restrictions  upon  the 
taxing  power  contained  in  the  Constitution  of  many  of  the 
states: 

"Resolved,  That  all  State  Constitutions  requiring  the  same  tax- 
ation of  all  property,  or  otherwise  imposing  restraints  upon  the 
reasonable  classification  of  property,  should  be  amended  by 
the  repeal  of  such  restrictive  provisions." 

The  resolution  under  consideration,  No.  33,  provides  for  that 
very  thing,  and  all  restrictions  upon  the  reasonable  classifica- 
tion of  property  should  be  taken  out  of  the  Constitution.  I 
wish  to  refer  to  other  authorities  on  taxation.  First,  I  would 
quote  from  the  supreme  judicial  body  of  the  United  States,  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court,  a  case  in  which  Mr.  Justice 
Lamar  in  delivering  the  opinion  said:  "A  system  which  imposes 
the  same  tax  upon  every  class  of  property  is  unjust,  and  re- 
sults in  unequal  burdens  on  the  different  classes."  Adding: 
"This  Court  has  repeatedly  laid  down  this  doctrine."  I  think 
we  can  safely  follow  in  this  respect  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylva- 
nia has  rendered  a  similar  decision. 

Professor  Bullock  of  Harvard  College,  an  authority  on  tax- 
ation, sajs:  "The  immediate  result  has  been  to  drive  people  of 
wealth  from  states  where  the  general  property  tax  has  been 
enforced,  and  into  other  states  which  have  imposed  taxes  less 
burtlensome." 

I  wish  once  more  to  refer  to  an  authority  which  cannot  be 
gainsaid,  one  in  which,  I  believe,  we  have  the  greatest  amount 
of  confidence.  I  refer  to  the  1911  report  of  the  New  Hamp- 
shire Tax  Commission,  which  reads  as  follows:    "The  members 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  241 

of  this  Commission  are  unanimous  in  urging  upon  the  Consti- 
tutional Convention  the  vital  importance  of  presenting-  to  the 
people  an  amendment,  or  amendments,  which,  if  ratified,  will 
permit  the  legislature  to  separate  property  into  different 
classes  for  taxation  and  impose  uniform  assessments,  rates, 
and  taxes  on  property  in  the  same  class,  and  graduate  inheri- 
tance taxes  according  to  the  amount  of  property  passing." 

It  seems  to  me.  Gentlemen,  that  the  weight  of  all  authority 
in  taxation  is  right  back  of  the  amendment,  No.  33,  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  allo\ving  the  legis- 
lature free  course  in  dealing  with  all  questions  of  taxation. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Berlin. — I  am  opposed  to  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  and  which  has  been  re- 
ferred to  by  the  gentleman  from  Jaffrey.  We  all  know  that  our 
form  of  government  in  theory,  and  in  practice,  guarantees  pro- 
•tection  to  life,  liberty  and  property;  that  for  that  guarantee 
each  citizen  pays  in  the  form  of  a  tax  his  proportionate  part 
of  the  expense  of  maintaining  the  government.  The  Constitu- 
tion provides  that  his  taxes  shall  be  assessed  on  a  proportional 
basis. 

Now  on  this  theory  and  on  these  lines  the  government  has 
prospered  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  I  believe  no 
fairer  way,  no  better  way,  was  ever  devised  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  a  government  than  by  compelling  each  citizen  to  bear  his 
share  of  the  burden  in  proportion  to  the  property  which  he 
owns.  It  has  worked  out  satisfactorily.  If  a  man  is  overtaxed 
he  appeals  to  the  Court,  and,  if  it  appears  that  his  property  is 
taxed  higher  than  other  property  of  the  same  class,  his  taxes 
are  abated  to  an  extent  necessary  to  make  his  taxes  only  equi- 
table and  proportional. 

This  amendment  is  intended  to  strike  out  of  the  Constitution 
the  words  "reasonable  and  proportional,"  and,  instead  of  hav- 
ing taxes  assessed  on  that  basis  it  authorizes  the  legislature 
to  classify  property  and  also  fix  the  rate  on  each  class.  If  this 
practice  is  adopted  it  seems  to  me  the  effect  will  be  to  array 
one  class  of  property  owners  against  another.  The  farmers, 
the  mill  owners,  and  all  owners  of  the  many  different  classes  of 
property  would  all  come  before  the  legislature  and  each  class 
would  claim  they  were  overtaxed.  The  legislature  would  be 
obliged  to  work  it  out.  Taking  into  account  these  various  con- 
flicting interests,  would  not  the  lesrislature  be  very  likely  to 
classify'  the  property  on  a  basis  that  would  be  inequi-Lable  and 
disproportional  rather  than  on:  the  fair  basis  of  reasonable  and 
proportional?     I  think  it  would. 


242     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Now  coming  to  the  forestry  question,  which  is  covered  by 
the  main  resolution  that  is  before  the  Convention,  I  am  in  favor 
of  the  legislature  classifying  this  property,  because  I  believe 
there  is  occasion  to  conserve  our  woodlands  as  much  as  possi- 
ble. In  the  discussions  carried  on  in  the  national  government, 
scientists  tell  us  that  preserving  the  forests  has  a  tendency  to 
equalize  the  rainfall  and  maintain  the  capacity  of  our  streams, 
so  that  they  can  be  used  for  useful  purposes.  They  also  tell 
us,  what  some  of  us  already  know,  that  cutting  off  the  forests 
has  a  tendency  to  dry  up  our  streams  and  to  injure  our  water 
powers.  If  some  arrangement  could  be  made  so  that  timber 
down  to  a  definite  size  could  be  yearly  cut  so  that  enough 
would  be  left  to  hold  the  moisture  on  our  mountains  and  val- 
leys, and  not  appreciably  affect  our  water  pow-ers,  the  result 
would  be  very  beneficial  to  the  state. 

Another  thing  to  be  considered  is  the  scenic  beauty  of  the 
state.  The  last  session  of  the  legislature  appropriated  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars  to  buy  Crawford  Notch  in  Hart's  Lo- 
cation, for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  cutting  off  of  the  tim- 
ber and  permanently  preserving  the  place  as  a  scenic  attraction. 
Is  it  not  better  to  encourage  people  by  legislation  to  hold  their 
timberland  so  they  will  gradually  cut  the  timber  off  than  to 
tax  them  to  such  an  extent  that  they  will  be  almost  forced  to 
cut  it  off? 

Now  as  to  the  matter  of  classifying  bonds,  many  interesting 
arguments  have  been  made  in  favor  of  and  against  this  propo- 
sition. And  I  believe  that  there  is  merit  in  both  sides  of  the 
proposition.  However,  it  is  quite  difficult  for  me  to  see  just 
what  the  ultimate  result  will  be  if  you  lighten  the  tax  on  bonds 
or  money  at  interest,  and  then  impose  a  tax  on  the  income  of 
these  same  bonds  and  this  same  money.  Will  not  the  result  then 
be  exactly  the  same  as  it  is  now?  But  possibly  the  standing 
Committee,  to  whom  this  resolution  is  likely  to  be  referred,  will 
work  out  some  result  that  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  people.  I 
think,  too,  that  the  three  questions  ought  to  be  separated; 
there  are  many  here  who  are  in  favor  of  one  of  these  proposi- 
tions, who  are  not  in  favor  of  the  others  and  vice  versa,  and 
sometime  before  the  matter  comes  up  for  final  action,  I  hope 
those  three  questions  will  be  separated  so  that  the  members 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  them  separately. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterborough. — I  recognize  the  fact  in  speaking  on 
this  question  that  it  is  a  question  that  touches  the  pocket  of 
every  individual  in  New  Hampshire,  and,  when  you  touch  the 
pocket  of  an  individual,  you  touch  that  man.     The  Constitution 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  248 

was  drafted  by  those   before   ii^,   and  I   think  they  wisely  saw 
what  results  would  follow  their  action,  and  provided  for  its  rem- 
edy  b}'    putting   in   that   very  word   "proportional."     They   pro- 
vided that  the  state  should  guarantee  protection  to  every  indi- 
vidual in  the  state,  and  in  order  to  protect  them  they  further 
provided  that  property  shouid  pay  its  proportional  part  of  the 
taxes   in   order  to   carry   out   the   first  proposition, — those  two 
propositions    are    linked    together;    they    were    linked   together 
purposely  by  those  who  drafted  this  Constitution  to  show  the 
fact    that    taxation    should    correspond    with    protection.     Some 
make  objections,  two  or  three  reasons  are  given  why  intangible 
property  should  be  exempt,  one  is,  it  isn't  property,  it  is  simply 
evidence  of  some  property.     Another  reason  is,  it  bears  unjust- 
ly upon  different  individuals.     Now  I  believe  if  you  could  lOok 
over  the  laws  of  this  state  and  the  work  of  the  institutions  un- 
der those  laws,  you  would  find  that  intangibles  in  every  place 
and  at  every  time  are  reckoned  property,  except  for  taxation.    I 
don't  believe  you  will  find  an  instance  where  intangible  prop- 
erty is  not  treated  as  property.     If  a  man  dies  and  leaves  prop- 
erty, did  you   ever  hear  of  any  of  the  heirs  complaining  that 
part  of  it  was  in  bonds  and  part  of  it  in  notes,  and  consequent- 
ly was  not  property?    Did  you  ever  hear  the  State  Tax  Commis- 
sion,   or  those    who    collect    the    inheritance    tax,    say    that, 
when  a  person  dies  and  leaves  money  to  be   distributed,  part 
of  it  going  to  the  state,  that  because  some  of  it  was  in  bonds 
and  notes  they  couldn't  have  any  share  of  it,  because  it  was  not 
property?     Did  you  ever  hear  that  suggestion?     1  never  did.     I 
don't  believe  you  ever  will.     There  isn't  a  thing  in  this  world 
that  touches  a  man  closer,  that  touches  a  man  more  feelingly 
than  when  he  is  called  upon  to  pay  taxes.     A  good  many  con- 
sider it  a  gift,  and,  in  my  position  as  one  of  the  selectmen  in 
Peterborough,  one  year  a  man  came  to  me  to  have  an  abate- 
ment of  the  tax  on  his  sheep  as  one  of  the  sheep  had  died  two 
or  three  days  after  it  was  taxed.     The  tax  at  that  time  was  ten 
cents.     That  man  wanted  ten  cents  abated  because  it  was  a  tax. 
I  believe  you  touch  any  man's  pocket  when  you  tax  him.     It 
appears  to  me  this  way:    Three  men  may  have  three  hundred 
thousand   dollars  given   to   them.     Those   three  men   may   take 
that  money,   one  may  buy  real   estate,   another  may  put   that 
money  into  bonds,   another  may   loan   that   money   at  interest, 
and  why  should  two  men  be  exempted  from  taxation  entirely, 
and  the  other  man  pay  fully  on  his  money  invested?     It  is  un- 
just.    Now   I   have   heard   a    good   deal   about   double   taxation. 
What  is  donble  taxation?     I  tell  you  one  man  that  never  pays 


244      JOCTRNAI-   OF    CONSTITUTJONAL    CONVENTION. 

double  taxation,  and  that  is  the  man  that  loans  the  money. 
You  never  knew  him  to.  You  let  a  man  buy  a  farm, — let  a 
man  buy  real  estate  anywhere  for  two  thousand  dollars,  run- 
ning in  debt  one  thousand  dollars  for  that,  when  the  tax  asses- 
sors come  around  thej'  will  tax  him  for  the  full  value  of  that 
property.  If  any  one  pays  double  taxation  he  does.  But  let 
the  man  loan  him  that  thousand  dollars  and  by  these  amend- 
ments that  man  will  not  pay  a  tax  on  a  dollar.  The  man  may 
be  worth  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  of  property  and  still 
not  pay  one  single  dollar  of  taxes  under  these  amendments  if 
they  become  law.  Now  there  is  another  thing.  I  don't  believe, 
— I  may  stand  alone, — I  don't  believe  that  it  is  wise  to  tinker 
very  much  with  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire.  I  don't 
think  it  is  wise  to  let  down  the  bars;  I  don't  think  it  is  wise  to 
leave  it  discretionary  with  the  legislature  or  the  people,  or  any 
one  to  say  from  j^ear  to  year  what  those  laws  shall  be  without 
some  safeguard.  I  believe  we  should  have  a  safeguard.  I  believe 
we  should  have  protection.  That  was  the  understanding  when 
our  Constitution  was  drafted,  and  that  was  provided  for.  ex- 
plicitly, so  that  the  minority  and  the  weak  might  be  protected 
against  the  majority  and  against  the  strong.  If  I  stand  alone 
today  I  stand  upon  that  proposition, — that  wherever  property 
exists  it  should  pay  its  proportion  of  the  taxes  and  the  state 
should  not  exempt  one  and  leave  another  to  pay  the  taxes.  Two 
things  are  certain,  one  is  that  taxes  will  always  be  required, 
the  other  is  that  somebody  has  got  to  pay  the  taxes.  Now 
those  two  things  are  certain.  You  relieve  one  class  of  property 
and  you  place  the  burden  on  another.  You  relieve  one  individ- 
ual and  you  place  the  burden  somewhere  else.  It  has  got  to  be 
borne  by  some  one,  and  it  is  a  little  amusing  to  me, — I  will  put 
it  in  that  form, — it  is  a  little  amusing  to  me  to  have  persons  try- 
to  get  rid  of  paying  the  tax  by  introducing  the  interests  of  the 
widow  and  children,  as  objects  to  look  after.  Did  you  ever  hear 
a  person  upon  this  floor,  or  anywhere  else,  object  or  ever  claim 
the  right  to  have  the  legislature  abate  taxes  on  the  intangibles 
because  it  would  affect  them?  No.  They  will  say:  "Here  is 
some  widow  with  one  thousand  dollars  in  bonds;  you  are  bear- 
ing on  her,  you  are  pressing  hard  upon  her.  Here  are  some 
minor  children  who  have  inherited  bonds  or  property,  you  are 
placing  the  burden  upon  them";  when,  if  the  truth  were  told,  it 
would  be  like  this:  "I  am  worth  one  hundred  thousand  dollars 
in  bonds,  and  I  want  you  to  legalize  some  means  whereby  I  can 
escape  taxation." 

;  Mr.  Busiel  of  Laoonia. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  want  to   say  that  I   sympathize  very  much  with 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  245 

what  the  g-entleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Smith,  has  said.  I 
want  to  say,  also,  that  I  am  glad  to  see,  in  accordance  with  the 
suggestion  I  made  before  dinner,  the  opportunity  to  discuss 
this  question  is  to  be  improved;  and  as  the  discussion  goes  on 
we  are  all  going  to  be  better  prepared  to  act  intelligently  upon 
this  subject.  If  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  is  to  stand, 
and  if  the  present  system  of  taxation  is  not  going  to  be  revolu- 
tionized by  the  resolution  which  has  been  introduced  here  by 
the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens, — and  there  are  many 
things  that  can  be  said  in  its  favor, — then  I  say  that  we,  as 
practical  business  men  here,  who  have  been  sent  here  by  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  to  do  our  best  to  relieve  the  some- 
what strained  situation  of  taxation  in  this  state,  must  carefully 
consider  and  deliberate,  and  decide  upon  what  we  think  will 
relieve  this  situation.  I  think  myself,  Gentlemen,  that  the  two 
words  in  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  which  relate  to 
taxation  most  vitally  are  the  words  "proportional"  and  "reason- 
able,"— those  two  words  are  most  admirable  words  to  be  there, 
and  I  cannot  conceive  of  anj-  two  words  in  the  English  language 
which  would  have  the  meaning  that  those  words  have  in  the 
Constitution.  I  should  say  it  would  be  a  calamity  to  the  state, 
of  New  Hampshire  to  strike  out  the  word  "proportional."  I' 
should  say  if  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  did  not  con- 
tain the  word  "reasonable"  it  would  have  failed  to  accomplish 
what  ought  to  be  a  piece  of  fundamental  law  relating  to  taxa- 
tion. I  also  have  great  admiration,  as  I  have  studied  the  tax 
laws,  for  that  very  simple  and  adequate  authority  given  to 
the  selectmen  or  assessors  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
which  is  comprised  so  briefly  in  the  few  words, — telling  them 
how  they  shall  assess  property  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
of  the  citizens  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  at  its  full  and 
true  value  in  money  as  that  property  would  be  valued  by  men 
who  were  setting  it  apart  to  pay  an  honest  debt  due  from  a 
solvent  debtor.  And,  Gentlemen,  I  think  that  much  of  the 
trouble  that  we  have  had  in  taxation  in  this  state,  much  of 
what  has  been  called  undervaluation,  has  arisen  from  the  fact 
that  our  assessors  and  selectmen  have  not  carefully  considered 
the  meaning  of  that  authority  to  tax  property,  and  have  been 
misled  in  many  cases  by  the  talk  of  men  that  a  house  which 
cost  a  certain  sum  of  money  should  therefore  be  taxed  for  that 
sum,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  it  was  a  house  where  a  man 
had  put  in  a  large  amount  of  money  that  he  could  never  get 
out,  the  law  of  the  state  does  not  authorize  the  selectmen  to 
value  that  house  at  its  cost,  but  compels  them,  if  they  are  hon- 


I 


246     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

est  men,  to  assess  it  for  that  value  in  money  at  whicli  it  could 
be  set  off  to  pay  an  honest  debt.     We  are  here  because  there  is 
a  very  abnormal  state  of  taxation  in  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  as  we  grow  older  and  wealthier,  and  as  more  sub- 
jects of  taxation  keep  appearing  in  our  state,  this  condition  of 
things   grows    worse.     When    the    Constitution   was    framed,    as 
some  one  has  said  nere  in  discussing  this  subject,  there  were 
very  few  things  to  tax  in  New  Hampshire.     The  farms  and  the 
little  village  property  were  chiefly  the  things  to  tax.     The  great 
manufacturing  interests  had  not  developed.     The  mill  develop- 
ment had  not  brought   property   into  the   state   to   tax;    there 
were  no  railroads  and  very  few  insurance  companies,  or  other 
corporations.     The  investment  in  bonds  and  stocks,  and  things 
of   that  kind,   had   not   arisen.     We   have   got   the   condition   of 
things  in  this  state  today,  where  in  the  operation  of  our  own 
laws,  made  by  as  able  men  as  make  laws  anywhere, — the  con- 
dition of  things  is  such  that  the  operation  of  those  laws  is  im- 
posing hardship  and  injustice  and  wrong,  and  the  people  of  the 
state  have  been  fretting  under  that  condition   of  things  until 
the  result  of  such  fretting  is  this  body  of  distinguished  men 
that  I  see  before  me   today,  with  this  subject  under  consider- 
ation, and  our  people  are  asking  us  to  do  something;  and,  while 
this  question  is  so  great  that   the  wisest  minds   in  the  world 
have  not  been  able  to  settle  it  in  a  way  that  the  nation,  or  state, 
or  town,  or  city  can  absolutely  approve  or  deem  perfect,  there 
are  certain  things  arising  which  are  compelling  attention,  and 
compelling  states  to  insist  on  such  bodies  as  this  Convention, 
and  attempts  to  change  even  the  fundamental  laws,  wherever 
they  are  deemed  to  be  unjust,  and  wherever  changes  are  neces- 
sary.    Now,  in  the   amendment  which  has  been  introduced   by 
the   gentleman  from  Tilton,   and  which  has   been   amended  by 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  which  has  been 
further  enlarged  by  another   resolution  relative  to   an  income 
tax,  it  strikes  me  there  is  a  step  in  the  right  direction  towards 
the  solution  of  this  question.     The  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr. 
Stevens,  has  introduced  an  amendment  of  the  broadest  charac- 
ter and  there  are  many  things  that  can  be  said  for  that  amend- 
ment, but  there  are  many  things  which  can  be  said  against  it. 
It  is  in  line  with  that  line  of  thought  indulged  in  by  men  of 
the  present  day,  who  desire  to  take  short  cuts,  and  who  are 
called  progressives,— and  I  do  not  use  the  term  in  any  deroga- 
tory sense.    It  is  in  the  line  of  thought  of  those  men  who  wish 
to  accomplish  things  rapidly.     And  to  show  that  this  is  so, — we 
had  before   us  an   amendment  offered  by   the   gentleman   from 


Thubsday,  June  13,  1912.  247 

Jaffrey,  Mr.  Duncan,  which  he  so  ably  supported,  proposing  the 
initiative   and  referendum  as  a  new  method   of  legislation  in 
New  Hampshire,  and  you  will  note  in  the  same  amendment  and 
in  the   same  line   of  thought  he  proposed  at  the  same  time  a 
rapid  tire  method  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  state  of  Xew 
Hampshire.     All  of  this  kind  of  legislation  grows  out  of.  the  im- 
patience and  the  desire  to  accomplish  things  rapidly  and  quick- 
ly.   It  is  revolution,  such  things  as  that,  such  rapid  methods  in 
the  change  of  our  Constitution,  and  in  the  affairs  of  the  state, 
as  were  offered  in  the  matter  of  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
and  the  amendment  for  rapid  and  easy  method  to  amend  our 
Constitution,  are  revolution,  Gentlemen.     Sometimes  the  affairs 
of  a  state  become  such  that  revolution  is  justifiable,  but  don't 
make  the  mistake  that  any  such  changes  advocated  hj  the  gen- 
tlemen,  as  the  initiative   and  referendum,    are   simply   amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution;  they  mean  revolution,  pure  and  sim- 
ple.    Now,  we  have  some  injustices  here  in  the  matter  of  taxa- 
tion  which    this   body   should   thoroughly   consider,    and    I    am 
going  to  state  briefly  a  few  of  them.     I  am  going  to  take  a  case 
of    the    railroad    Dond    for    one    thousand    dollars,    which    some 
gentleman  has  seen  fit  to  buy;  its  income  is  forty  dollars.     If  a 
similar  bond  is  bought  by  a  savings  bank  and  taxed  under  the 
present  rate  it  will  pay  a  tax  of  seven  and  one-half  dollars,  and 
the  income  tax  imposed  on  that  bond,  if  you  regard  that  tax 
as  an  income  tax,  is  18%  percent.     Now  some  gentleman  comes 
into  the  bank,  who  wishes  the  advice  of  the  treasurer  as  to  the 
investment  of  one  thousand   dollars,  and  the  treasurer  recom- 
mends to  him  the  same  bond,  and  he  buys  it.     The  income  of 
the  bond  is  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  bank,  when  the  bank 
owned  it,  $40.     If  he  lived  in  Laconia  and  the  tax  assessors  came 
around  and  wanted  to  know  if  he  had  any  intangible  property 
for  taxation,  and  compelled  him  to  declare  it,  and  he  said,  "Yes, 
I  have   a    railroad   bond   that   yields   me    $40  income,"   the   tax 
assessor  would  put  it  down  on  his  book  and  that  man  would  pay 
out  of  the  $40  twenty-five  dollars  tax,  and  the  income  tax  rate 
that  that  man  would  pay  on  that  bond  would  be  621/2  percent. 
That  bond  in  the  savings  bank,  mark  you.  Gentlemen,  was  pay- 
ing an  income  tax  rate  of  18%  percent,  but  that  same  bond  in 
the  possession  of  the  man,  who  has  come  in  and  asked  the  treas- 
urer how  he  should  invest  his  money,  imposes  upon  the  man 
who  invested  his  money  in  it  an  income  tax  rate  of  62l^  per- 
cent. 

Gentlemen,  I  remarked  a  few  moments  ago  that  the  attempt 
by  short  cuts  to  amend  this  Constitution  and  the  matter  of  in- 


248     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

itiative  and  referendum  were  revolutionary,  and  •  it  brings  t<J 
mind  that  this  is  a  matter  of  similar  character.  Your  present 
law  is,  to  many  persons'  minds,  just  as  wrong  and  oppressive  as 
initiative  and  referendum,  and  the  taking  of  621/2  percent  of  a 
man's  income,  who  owns  the  four  percent  bond  of  the  Pennsyl- 
yania  Eailroad,  is  confiscation,  confiscation  pure  and  simple,  and 
the  words  "revolution"  and  "confiscation,"  Gentlemen,  are  not 
pleasant  words  for  us  to  consider,  and  they  are  not  deemed  so 
by  anybody. 

Now,  the  savings  banks  can  buy  railroad  stock,  and,  when 
they  do  so,  the  railroad  stock  that  pays  six  percent  will  give  an 
income  on  one  thousand  dollars  of  $60,  and  that  bank  will  pay  a 
tax  of  $7.50,  as  in  the  other  case  of  the  $1,000  bond,  but  the  in- 
come tax  rate  that  the  bank  pays  on  that  stock  will  be  only 
1214  percent,  instead  of  18%  percent.  Now  comes  along  an  in- 
dividual with  some  money  and  asks  the  treasurer  how  he  shall 
invest  it.  He  says,  "Why  don't  you  buy  some  stock  in  that  rail- 
road?" "What  is  the  tax  on  it?"  'Oh,  there  isn't  any  tax  on  it, 
if  you  own  it."  "Well,  I  guess  I  will  buy  some  of  that."  So  he 
buys  one  thousand  dollars  worth  of  railroad  stock;  the  income 
from  the  same  is  $60;  the  assessor  comes  around  and  asks  him 
what  property  he  has,  and  among  other  things  he  mentions  the 
railroad  stock.  The  assessor  says,  "I  don't  care  for  you  to  tell 
me  about  that;  that  is  of  no  consequence;  there  is  no  tax  on  it 
at  all."  Your  savings  bank  paj'S  121/3  percent  income  tax  on  it, 
but  the  individual  is  paying  nothing;  but  it  is  the  same  thing, 
or  the  same  property  in  both  cases;  the  man  who  bought  that 
railroad  bond  gets  talking  with  the  man  who  bought  the  rail- 
road stock,  and  the  man  who  bought  the  bond  says:  "You  know 
what  they  have  done  to  me  after  I  bought  that  four  percent 
bond?  Why,  they  took  $25  of  the  income  of  it  for  taxes." 
"Well,."  the  man  says  who  bought  the  stock,  "What  made  you 
stand  it?  You  don't  need  to  stand  that."  "What  shall  I  do?" 
"Sell  your  bond,  put  it  into  stock  the  same  as  I  did;  it  won't 
cost  you  anything  for  taxation.     They  don't  tax  it  at  all." 

Now  a  man  who  owns  a  little  cottage  house  and  lot  which  has 
cost  him  $2,000,  and  which,  if  he  rented  it,  would  bring  in  an 
income  of  $150  under  the  old  system  of  taxation, — before  my 
friend  Mr.  Fellows,  in  order  to  cure  an  ill,  adopted  the  maxim 
of  General  Grant,  that  the  proper  way  to  get  rid  of  a  bad  law 
was  to  enforce  it  vigorously, — would  have  been  taxed  about 
two-thirds  of  its  value,  and  at  the  tax  rate  in  Laconia,  if  we  re- 
gard the  income  solely  in  this  transaction,  the  income  tax  rate 
on  that  house  and  lot  would  have  been  22.2  percent.  The  total 
tax  would  have  been  $16.67  on  a  thousand  of  valuation.     Now 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  249 

suppose  the  gentleman  sold  his  cottage  house  and  lot,  and  got 
two  thousand  dollars  for  it,  and  he  put  his  money  that  he  got 
into  the  savings  bank  here  in  New  Hampshire,  where  the  income 
from  savings  banks  averages  3.69  percent,  his  two  thousand  dol- 
lars would  have  paid  him  $73.80;  he  would  have  got  that  in  the 
shape  of  dividends  and  be  taxed  nothing;  He  would  be  just  as 
well  off  as  far  as  taxes  go  as  the  fellow  who  put  his  money  into 
stock;  he  wouldn't  pay  anything  because  he  put  his  money  in 
the  bank,  but  if,  instead  of  doing  that,  some  man  had  hinted 
to  him  he  could  get  greater  income  by  putting  it  into  stocks, 
and  he  put  it  into  6  percent  stock,  he  got  an  income  of  $120  in- 
stead of  $70.80,  and  still  is  taxed  nothing.  Now  I  have  given 
examples  briefly  which  show  you  the  wrong  condition  of  things, 
as  they  exist,  in  my  mind,  in  the  taxation  laws  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  things  that  ought  to  be  cured.  I  realize.  Gen- 
tlemen, that  there  is  peril  in  opening  the  door  here  to  discrimi- 
nation in  taxation,  but  there  are  certain  kinds  of  property 
which  possibly  we  may,  as  a  practical  question,  tax  differently 
instead  of  taxing  them  as  they  are  taxed  today.  And  the  case 
of  the  bond  and  the  case  of  the  woodland  have  been  brought  in 
here  as  separate  examples  of  it.  Now,  in  the  case  of  the  bond,  I 
think  there  should  be  a  remedy  sought  here  in  this  state,  and, 
as  there  must  be  some  way  of  taxing  men  who  have  an  income 
from  what  is  known  as  intangible  property,  and  who  have  not 
invested  that  property  in  what  we  know  as  general  property, 
and  so  are  not  subject  to  what  we  know  as  general  property 
tax,  I  have,  as  a  result  of  my  thought  on  this  question,  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  fair  and  straight  way  is  to  impose  an 
income  tax  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  I  have  another 
reason  for  it,  and  I  will  be  perfectly  frank,  Gentlemen,  because 
I  believe  we  should  be  in  a  discussion  of  this  kind, — I  have  an- 
other reason  for  it, — and  it  is  because  I  am  utterly  against  giv- 
ing the  federal  government  a  right  to  levy  an  income  tax  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  I  am  opposed  to  it  for  the  broad 
and  simple  reason  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  has  under  its  present  Constitution  distinct  and  ample 
authority  to  impose  all  the  taxes  upon  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire that  it  ought  ever  to  have.  The  United  States  government 
can  today  tax  you,  not  only  indirectly  as  it  is  taxing  you 
through  the  tariff,  and  in  other  ways  at  the  present  time,  but  it 
has  full,  ample,  and  specific  authority  to  levy  a  direct  tax  on 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  here,  and  allow  you  to  pay  that 
tax  by  raising  it  in  any  manner  you  see  fit,  and,  if  we  can  once 
impose   an   income   tax   to   cure    this   ill   we   are    speaking   of,   I 


250     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

should  hope  that  the  state  would  be   opposed  to  allowing-  the 
federal   government  to  impose  an   income   tax.    If   a  man  has 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  it  is  invested  in   stocks,  he 
gets  a  six  thousand  dollar  income,  we  will  say,  and  he  pays  no 
tax.     If  he  has  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  invested  in  four 
percent  bonds, — or  I  will  say  to  make  the  examples  alike, — in- 
vested  in   six  percent    bonds   and   gets   $-6,000   in    income,   if  he 
lives  in  my  town,  and  he  discloses  that  he  has  the  bonds,  he  will 
pay  $2,500  out  of  tlw  6  percent  income  from  the  bonds  in  the  sJmpe  of 
ta^res.     Now  that   is   not  what  is   meant  by   the  word  "propor- 
tional" or  "reasonable"  in  j-our  State  Constitution,  and  that  is 
why  I  say  that  I  am  in  favor  of  an  amendment  like  this  for  the 
exemption  of  property, — intangible  property  of  this  kind  in  the 
case  of  bonds,  just  the  same  as  it  has  already  been  done  in  the 
case  of  stock,  and  for  the  same  reason, — for  the  same  identical 
reason  that  it  is  double  taxation,  as  well  as  for  the  injustice  in 
the  case^     For  I  say  that  it  is  perilously  near  insanity  in  taxa- 
tion to  say  that  you  can  tax  a  bond  at  its  full  value  and  take 
6214  percent  of  its  income,  and  practicallj^  confiscate  the  whole 
income,  but  cannot  tax  the  man  who  owns  property  in  the  shape 
of  stock;  that  he  cannot  be  touched,  and  nobody  can  approach 
him  to  tax  him,  if  he  owns   stock,  but  if  he  takes  the  same 
money  and  puts  it  into  bonds  you  are  authorized  under  the  law 
to  take  621/2  percent  of  his  income.     I  don't  believe  in  anything 
of  the  sort,  Gentlemen,  and  that  is  why  I  don't  believe  in  taxing 
bonds  in   the  state  of  New  Hampshire.     Now,  Gentlemen,  j^ou 
may  think  that  you  have  got  the  jDower  and  you  are  going  to 
use  it.     Don't  fool  yourselves.   Gentlemen;   you  think   you  can 
tax  four  percent  bonds  in  the  city  of  Laconia  at  the  rate  of  $25 
a  thousand;   you  cannot  do  anything  of  the  kind;   the  law  au- 
thorizes you  to  do  it,  but  you  cannot  enforce  the  law.     Why? 
Because  the  money  doesn't  stay  there  in  that  form;  it  gets  right 
out    of  your   state    in    a   minute,   just   as    quick   as   a    man   can 
change  it.    Why,  I  have  had  forty  men  come  to  me,  I  should 
think,  when  it  was  apparent  that  this  year  things  were  going  to 
be  assessed  in  the  way  they  were  assessed,  asking:  "What  shall 
I  do?"    I  said,  "What  is  your  property?"     "I  have  got  so  many 
bonds."     "If  you  have  any  bonds  and  you  disclose  them,  they 
will  tax  them."     "What  shall  I  do?"     "Sell  your  bonds,  and  buy 
some  stock."     "And  what  shall  I  buy?"     And  that  was  the  way 
things  were  talked  until  I  do  not  know  how  many  million  dol- 
lars' worth  of  bonds  went  out  of  the  state  of  New, Hampshire. 
I  know  many  millions  went,  and  I  know  because  some  could  not 
be   sold   to   go   out   of  the   state   there   were   some  tremendous 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  251 

hardships.  I  want  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough, 
that  the  matter  of  sympathy  and  that  sort  of  thing  should  not 
be  made  the  basis  of  taxation.  I  say  it  should  not  be  made  tne 
basis  of  representation,  and  sentiment  has  no  place  in  matters 
of  this  kind.  There  were  widows  who  owned  property,  there 
were  men  who  held  property  as  trustees,  who  didn't  know  what 
to  do,  and  they  suffered  great  injustice;  they  were  forced  to 
pay  large  taxes  unless  they  sold  their  bonds,  and,  if  they  sold 
their  bonds,  what  did  they  do?  They  had  to  put  their  money 
into  securities  that  were  of  less  intrinsic  value,  and  so  you  im- 
pose a  hardship,  and  it  is  a  hardship,  and  unless  you  correct  it, 
Gentlemen,  the  people  will  correct  it  themselves.  You  can  let 
this  thing  "set''  if  you  want  to;  you  can  continue  to  tax  bonds 
the  way  you  are  doing;  you  can  continue  to  make  discriminatory 
legislation  as  to  bonds,  if  you  wish.  You,  perhaps,  are  not  go- 
ing to  remedy  the  matter.  But  the  people  will  exercise  the 
rights  they  have  left;  they  have  the  right  to  go  and  sell  that 
kind  of  property  and  convert  it  into  something  else  that  is  not 
taxable  at  all,  and  will  do  so.  Some  gentlemen  may  say  I  am 
in  favor  of  exempting  the  rich  man  from  taxation^  Nothing 
of  the  sort.  I  utterly  repudiate  anything  of  that  kind.  If  I 
could  not  talk  on  this  subject  on  what  I  call  a  fair  and  square 
basis  I  would  take  my  seat  and  forever  hold  my  peace.  But,  if 
you  are  not  going  to  tax  intangible  property  by  an  income  tax, 
what  are  you  going  to  do?  I  suggested- to  the  gentleman  from 
Tilton,  when  this  subject  has  been  talked  with  him  as  I  have 
talked  at  different  times,  that  I  could  not  see  any  other  way 
than  to  impose  the  income  tax  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire; 
and  it  is  fair,  and  it  is  just.  There  are  men  who  say  you  can- 
not operate  the  income  tax.  I  say  you  can.  I  say  you  can  do 
nothing  which  will  so  tone  up  the  whole  question,  the  whole  fis- 
cal question  in  New  Hampshire,  and  make  men  so  thoroughly 
honest,  as  to  imf)0se  an  income  tax.  At  the  present  time  they 
are  making  laws  for  themselves  to  evade  unjust  taxation.  You 
cannot  enforce  unjust  tax  laws.  You  cannot  collect  confiscatory 
taxes.  Gentlemen,  and  people  will  take  it  into  their  own  hands 
to  see  that  you  do  not.  How  can  you  reach  this  property?  I 
say  by  an  income  tax.  You  may  say  that  is  something  new  in 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  but  I  am  going  to  show  you  very 
briefly  that  it  is  not.  I  am  going  to  show  j^ou  very  briefly  you 
are  unconstitutionally-  exercising  the  income  tax  today  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  when  you  are  taxing  the  savings  banks 
in  the  way  you  are  taxing  them,  and  which  present  method  of 
taxation  is  to  my  mind  not  only  all  wrong,  but  as  thoroughly 


252     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

unconstitutional  a  tax  as  you  have  got,  or  ever  had  in  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  the  only  ground  upon  which  you  can 
justify  it  under  the  Constitution,  is  that  it  is  an  excise  tax,  or  is 
in  the  nature  of  an  excise. 

The  savings  bank  of  which  I  am  one  of  the  trustees  paid 
last  year  an  income  tax  of  llVg  percent.  Some  one  will  say:  "I 
did  not  know  there  was  an  income  tax  on  savings  banks."  No, 
there  isn't,  but  they  paid  an  income  tax  of  lli/o  percent,  for  that 
is  just  exactly-  what  the  tax  amounted  to  on  the  income  of  that 
bank  last  year.  The  bank  had  881/2  percent  with  which  to  pay 
dividends  to  its  depositors,  and  the  state  took  lll^  percent. 
Now,  we  have  another  bank  in  Laconia,  a  younger  one,  that  has 
gone  into  operation  since  some  of  the  laws  relating  to  taxation 
have  been  changed  in  New  Hampshire.  You  w^ould  say  that 
bank  paid  probably  about  the  same.  Now  it  did  not,  Gentle- 
men. That  bank  paid  last  year  7.8  percent  income  tax.  The 
old  bank  with  which  I  am  connected  with  its  two  millions  of  de- 
posits paid  111/2,  the  new  bank  with  about  six  or  seven  hundred 
thousands  of  deposits,  paid  7.8  percent.  Whence  is  the  inequal- 
ity? You,  Gentlemen,  say,  Why  is  that?  It  all  came  about 
legally,  and  under  your  laws  that  you  have  made  here  in  your 
legislatures.  You  see  even  the  legislature  can  pass  unjust  laws 
relating  to  taxation,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  my  friend 
from  Landafl  thinks  they  cannot, — they  can,  and  they  do,  and 
they  would.  That  bank  invested  its  money  in  mortgages  on 
New  Hampshire  property,  where  the  rate  of  interest  was  five 
percent  or  under,  and  on  such  it  was  not  taxed  at  all,  and  it 
invested  sufficient  of  its  money  in  that  way  so  that  its  tax  rate 
was  7.8  percent,  while  the  tax  rate  on  the  old  bank  was  IIV2  per- 
cent, because  the  old  bank  has  lots  of  bonds  in  it,  and  a  bigger 
proportion  of  securities,  which  are  taxed  at  full  value,  and  so 
has  less  proportion  of  assets  exempt  from  taxation.  The  legis- 
lature of  New  Hampshire  should  never  have  begun  any  such 
thing  as  exempting  money  loaned  at  a  certain  percent  from  tax- 
ation; and  I  go  further,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  and  say 
the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  should  never  have  gone  to  the 
extent  of  exempting  a  three  and  one-half  percent  municipal 
bond  from  all  taxes,  when  owned  by  a  savings  bank,  if  the  bond 
was  issued  by  some  town  in  New  Hampshire.  I  do  not  believe 
in  that  way  of  doing  business.  Now,  some  gentlemen  may  say: 
"You  have  not  an  income  tax  on  banks."  I  want  you  to  know 
that  last  year  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  you  taxed  all 
of  the  savings  banks  and  all  of  the  guaranty  banks  10.19  per- 
cent on  their  income      Some  men  think  that  an  income  tax  is  a 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  253 

hardship,  but  you  are  going-  on  taxing  your  savings  banks  at  the 
rate  of  over  ten  percent  on  their  income.  You  are  practically 
taxing  them  more  than  any  other  property.  Some  men  say  it 
is  only  three-quarters  of  one  percent;  it  wasn't  three-quarters 
of  one  percent.  You  did  not  tax  them  three-quarters  of  one 
percent.  You  taxed  them  a  little  less  than  .58  of  one  percent, 
because  you  have  been  giving  them  this  authority  to  change 
their  investments  and  put  them  into  things  that  do  not  bear 
taxes.  You  have  been  going  along  here  in  a  random  fashion; 
today  you  tax  one  rate;  some  fellow  gets  up  in  the  legislature 
and  thinks  jou  ought  to  add  to  it  or  subtract  from  it,  and  He 
wants  to  get  it  done,  and  it  is,  maybe,  voted,  and  the  rate  is 
changed,  and  so  it  goes  on.  Don't  you  see  if  you  had  an  income 
tax  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  you  could  tax  savings  banks 
squarely  and  fairly,  and  not  necessarily  take  five  percent  of 
their  income?  Mr.  Fuller  from  Exeter  says  you  cannot  enforce 
such  a  tax.  I  say  you  can.  I  say  that  men  will  disclose  their 
income  for  taxation  when  the  tax  is  fair,  and  I  have  yet  to  talk 
with  the  man  who  has  money  at  interest  that  won't  do  that 
very  thing,  and  the  only  possible  way  out  of  this  difficulty  is  an 
income  tax.  I  am  in  favor  of  an  income  tax  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  for  the  added  reason  I  have  given,  that  I  hope 
it  will  stop  the  state  from  voting  for  the  Federal  income  tax, 
which  I  do  not  believe  in,  because  I  do  not  want  the  money  of 
New  Hampshire  taken  under  the  Federal  Income  tax,  and  spent 
in  some  scheme  to  build  a  cement  wall  the  whole  length  of  the 
Mississippi  river  to  prevent  it  from  flooding  the  adjacent  land. 
If  the  general  government  wants  to  do  that,  I  say  let's  go  and 
do  it,  just  as  I  was  willing  to  see  the  money  spent  for  the  Pan- 
ama canal,  but  not  by  taxing  the  rich  states  only. 

The  United  States  government  has  the  powder  in  cases  of 
emergency,  and  if  the  life  of  this  nation  is  in  danger,  if  it  wants 
the  money  of  this  state,  it  has  got  the  power  to  take  it,  it  is 
right  there  in  ample  form  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Now^  there  have  been  manj'  attempts  to  regulate  the 
taxation  and  plans  formed  for  taxation,  and  I  have  here  the  re- 
port of  the  meeting  of  the  first  National  Tax  conference  in  3907. 
Mr.  Duncan  read  you  some  extracts  from  some  subsequent  ones, 
and,  promising  not  to  weary  you, — and  I  don't  know  but  I  have 
already, — I  want  to  call  attention  briefly  to  a  little  thing  here 
read  by  a  gentleman  at  the  conference  relating  to  the  taxes  in 
the  state  of  Maine.  That  is  a  sister  state  right  across  the  line, 
and  this  article  was  by  Prof.  Robert  J.  Sprague,  Department  of 
Economics  and  Sociology,  University   of  Maine,  and  he  started 


252     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

unconstitutional  a  tax  as  you  have  got,  or  ever  had  in  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  the  only  ground  upon  which  you  can 
justify  it  under  the  Constitution,  is  that  it  is  an  excise  tax,  or  is 
in  the  nature  of  an  excise. 

The  savings  bank  of  which  I  am  one  of  the  trustees  paid 
last  year  an  income  tax  of  IIV2  percent.  Some  one  will  say:  "I 
did  not  know  there  was  an  income  tax  on  savings  banks."  No, 
there  isn't,  but  they  paid  an  income  tax  of  liyo  percent,  for  that 
is  just  exactly  what  the  tax  amounted  to  on  the  income  of  that 
bank  last  year.  The  bank  had  88l^  percent  with  which  to  pay 
dividends  to  its  depositors,  and  the  state  took  lll^  percent. 
Now,  we  have  another  bank  in  Laconia,  a  younger  one,  that  has 
gone  into  operation  since  some  of  the  laws  relating  to  taxation 
have  been  changed  in  New  Hampshire.  You  would  say  that 
bank  paid  probably  about  the  same.  Now  it  did  not.  Gentle- 
men. That  bank  paid  last  year  7,8  percent  income  tax.  The 
old  bank  with  which  I  am  connected  with  its  two  millions  of  de- 
posits paid  ll^a*  the  new  bank  with  about  six  or  seven  hundred 
thousands  of  deposits,  paid  7.8  percent.  Whence  is  the  inequal- 
ity? You,  Gentlemen,  say,  Why  is  that?  It  all  came  about 
legally,  and  under  your  laws  that  you  have  made  here  in  your 
legislatures.  You  see  even  the  legislature  can  pass  unjust  laws 
relating  to  taxation,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  my  friend 
from  LandafP  thinks  they  cannot, — they  can,  and  they  do,  and 
they  would.  That  bank  invested  its  money  in  mortgages  on 
New  Hampshire  property,  where  the  rate  of  interest  was  five 
percent  or  under,  and  on  such  it  was  not  taxed  at  all,  and  it 
invested  sufficient  of  its  money  in  that  wa^^  so  that  its  tax  rate 
was  7.8  percent,  while  the  tax  rate  on  the  old  bank  was  11 V2  per- 
cent, because  the  old  bank  has  lots  of  bonds  in  it,  and  a  bigger 
proportion  of  securities,  which  are  taxed  at  full  value,  and  so 
has  less  proportion  of  assets  exempt  from  taxation.  The  legis- 
lature of  New  Hampshire  should  never  have  begun  any  such 
thing  as  exempting  money  loaned  at  a  certain  percent  from  tax- 
ation; and  I  go  further,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  and  say 
the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  should  never  have  gone  to  the 
extent  of  exempting  a  three  and  one-half  percent  municipal 
bond  from  all  taxes,  when  owned  by  a  savings  bank,  if  the  bond 
was  issued  by  some  town  in  New  Hampshire.  I  do  not  believe 
in  that  way  of  doing  business.  Now,  some  gentlemen  may  say: 
"You  have  not  an  income  tax  on  banks."  I  want  you  to  know 
that  last  year  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  you  taxed  all 
of  the  savings  banks  and  all  of  the  guaranty  banks  10.19  per- 
cent on  their  income      Some  men  think  that  an  income  tax  is  a 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  253 

hardship,  but  you  are  going  on  taxing  your  savings  banks  at  the 
rate  of  over  ten  percent  on  their  income.  You  are  practically 
taxing  them  more  than  any  other  property.  Some  men  say  it 
is  only  three-quarters  of  one  percent;  it  wasn't  three-quarters 
of  one  i)ercent.  You  did  not  tax  them  three-quarters  of  one 
percent.  You  taxed  them  a  little  less  than  .58  of  one  percent, 
because  j'ou  have  been  giving  them  this  authority  to  change 
their  investments  and  put  them  into  things  that  do  not  bear 
taxes.  You  have  been  going  along  here  in  a  random  fashion; 
today  you  tax  one  rate;  some  fellow  gets  up  in  the  legislature 
and  thinks  j^ou  ought  to  add  to  it  or  subtract  from  it,  and  ne 
wants  to  get  it  done,  and  it  is,  maybe,  voted,  and  the  rate  is 
changed,  and  so  it  goes  on.  Don't  you  see  if  you  had  an  income 
tax  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  you  could  tax  savings  banks 
squarely  and  fairly,  and  not  necessarily  take  five  percent  of 
their  income?  Mr.  Fuller  from  Exeter  says  you  cannot  enforce 
such  a  tax.  I  say  you  can.  I  say  that  men  will  disclose  their 
income  for  taxation  when  the  tax  is  fair,  and  I  have  yet  to  talk 
with  the  man  who  has  money  at  interest  that  won't  do  that 
very  thing,  and  the  only  possible  w^ay  out  of  this  difficulty  is  an 
income  tax.  I  am  in  favor  of  an  income  tax  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  for"  the  added  reason  I  have  given,  that  I  hope 
it  will  stop  the  state  from  voting  for  the  Federal  income  tax, 
which  I  do  not  believe  in,  because  I  do  not  want  the  money  of 
New  Hampshire  taken  under  the  Federal  Income  tax,  and  spent 
in  some  scheme  to  build  a  cement  wall  the  whole  length  of  the 
Mississippi  river  to  prevent  it  from  flooding  the  adjacent  land. 
If  the  general  government  wants  to  do  that,  I  say  let's  go  and 
do  it,  just  as  I  was  willing  to  see  the  monej^  spent  for  the  Pan- 
ama canal,  but  not  by  taxing  the  rich  states  only. 

The  United  States  government  has  the  power  in  cases  of 
emergency,  and  if  the  life  of  this  nation  is  in  danger,  if  it  wants 
the  money  of  this  state,  it  has  got  the  power  to  take  it.  it  is 
right  there  in  ample  form  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  Now  there  have  been  many  attempts  to  regulate  the 
taxation  and  plans  formed  for  taxation,  and  I  have  here  the  re- 
port of  the  meeting  of  the  first  National  Tax  conference  in  3907. 
Mr.  Duncan  read  you  some  extracts  from  some  subsequent  ones, 
and,  promising  not  to  weary  you, — and  I  don't  know  but  I  have 
already, — I  want  to  call  attention  briefiy  to  a  little  thing  here 
read  by  a  gentleman  at  the  conference  relating  to  the  taxes  in 
the  state  of  Maine.  That  is  a  sister  state  right  across  the  line, 
and  this  article  was  by  Prof.  Robert  J.  Sprague,  Department  of 
Economics  and  Sociology,  University   of  Maine,  and  he   started 


254     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

off  by  speaking-  of  Adam  iSmith's  first  principle.  Adam  Smith 
has  been  dead  a  great  many  years.  He  was  a  pretty  wise  man, 
and  he  had  some  pretty  good  ideas. 

"The  subjects  of  every  state  ought  to  contribute  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  government,  as  nearly  as  possible  in  proportion  to 
their  respective  abilities;  that  is,  in  proportion  to  the  revenue 
they  respectively  enjoy,  under  the  protection  of  the  state.  In 
the  observation  or  neglect  of  this  maxim  consists  what  is  called 
the  equality  or  inequality  of  taxation." 
Then  the  man  cites  an  instance  in  the  state  of  Maine: 
"A  selected  typical  farmer  of  the  poorer  class  yields  the  fol- 
lowing facts: 

Forty-nine  acres  of  land,  with  buildings,  assessed  at ... .        $900 
Personal  property 140 

Total  property $1,040 

Property  tax $29.12 

Poll  tax 3.00 

Total  tax $32.12" 

This  you  say  is  a  pretty  heavy  tax  for  a  farm  of  that  size, 
and  he  says  that  this  man,  after  careful  consideration,  told  him 
his  income  couldn't  exceed  $400,  and  you  notice  that  farmer  is 
paying  an  income  tax  of  eight  percent.  Now  he  speaks  of  an- 
other farm: 

"Buildings  assessed  at $2,730 

Personal  property  assessed  at 380 

Total    $3,110 

Property  tax $87.08 

Poll  tax 3.00 

Total    tax $90.08" 

So  here  again  is  a  large  tax.  "For  the  privilege  of  enjoying 
this  income  under  the  protection  of  the  state  he  pays  $90.08,  or 
11V4  percent  on  his  net  income." 

Some  men  shudder  at  the  idea  of  the  income  tax,  when  you 
talk  about  what  the  farmer  is  paying  in  the  shape  of  income 
tax.  He  is  paying  like  the  savings  bank;  he  is  paying  too  much 
tax.  He  goes  further  and  says,  "Let  us  now  examine  the  con- 
tribution made  by  the  wage-earning  class  of  citizens  for  the 
support  of  the  local  government.  In  one  of  the  largest  manu- 
facturing plants  of  the  town  I  obtained  the  incomes  of  all  the 
regular  workmen,  excepting  the   superintendents.     The  list  in- 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  255 

eludes  only  those  men  who  work  the  year  round  for  this  cor- 
poration, and  who  have  no  other  considerable  income. 
"The  incomes  are  as  follows: 

"7  men  at  $1,040  per  year $7,280.00 

3  men  at  $832  per  year 2,496.00 

2  men  at  $780  per  year 1,560.00 

3  men  at  $728  per  year 2,184.00 

8  men  at  $624  per  year 4,992.00 

8  men  at  $557.44  per  year 4,459.52 

19  men  at  $514.80  per  year 9,781.20 

5  men  at  $507  per  year 2,535.00 

55  men        Total  income $35,287.72 

"These  men  pay  taxes  as  follows: 

"32  men  poll  taxes  at  $3 , .  $96.00 

All  others  pay  an  aggregate  of. $316.70 

"The  total  is  1   1/7  percent  of  the  total  income." 

Now,  mind  you,  he  doesn't  include  anybody  that  doesn't  earn 
$507  in  a  year,  and  running  from  that  up  to  $1,040.  Then  he 
goes  on  and  makes  a  summary.  After  discussing  further  such 
taxes  as  the  classes  pay,  he  states  as  follows: 

"Farmers  with  poor  farms,  8  percent  to  10  percent  of  net  in- 
come. 

"Farmers  with  good  farms,  10  percent  to  12  percent  on  net  in- 
come. 

"Wage  earners,  average  1  percent  of  net  income. 

"College  professors  and  administrators,  9/10  percent  of  net 
income. 

"Physicians,  1  1/16  percent  of  net  income. 

"The  druggist  (on  stock  in*trade),  li/g  percent  of  net  income. 

"Grocers  (on  stock  in  trade),  1*4  percent  of  net  income." 

Then  he  goes  on,  but  I  won't  worry  you  with  the  discussion 
of  the  taxes  on  wild  lands.  Now,  some  man  may  ask  what  is 
the  remedy;  and  for  a  suggestion  I  am  going  to  take  up  here 
another  thing  that  was  discussed  at  the  meeting  where  these 
tables  were  read,  which  is  the  general  property  tax  as  a  source 
of  state  revenue,  so  read  by  Prof.  J.  H.  T.  McPherson,  professor 
of  history  and  political  science.  University  of  Georgia,  Athens, 
Ga.  He  goes  on  and  speaks  of  the  general  property  tax  in  prac- 
tice, and  its  defects.     He  says: 

"The  first  defect  of  the  general  property  tax  in  actual  ad- 
ministration is  its  lack  of  uniformity,  or  failure  to  affect  all 
property  equally,  owing  to  differences  in  the  appraisement  by 
assessors  of  valuation  of  individuals.       While  the  law  requires 


256     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

that  all  property  shall  be  rated  at  its  true  selling  value,  the 
actual  practice  of  assessment  varies  enormously." 

Then  he  says  the  secoifd  great  defect  in  the  general  property 
tax,  as  actually  administered,  "is  its  failure  to  reach  certain  im- 
portant classes  of  property.  It  is  notorious  that  personal  prop- 
erty largelj^  escapes  taxation."  That  is  why  I  favor  the  income 
tax. 

"A  third  and,  from  the  ethical  point  of  view,  the  greatest  evil 
of  the  general  property  tax  in  practice  is  the  constant  and  al- 
most irresistible  temptation  to  dishonesty  which  it  places  be- 
fore every  property  owner.  A  man  inclined  to  be  upright  is 
almost  forced  into  dishonesty  by  the  tax."  You  see  it  is  not 
merely  an  income  tax  that  forces  dishonesty;  you  see  there  are 
other  things  that  force  dishonesty  as  well  as  income  tax. 

"A  fourth  evil  of  the  general  property  tax  is  that  in  practice 
it  always  throws  a  heavier  proportion  of  the  tax  upon  the 
smaller  properties,  thus  discriminating  against  the  poorer 
classes.  This  is  due  in  part  to  unequal  assessment,  and  in  part 
to  the  escape  of  intangible  property.  A  house  and  lot  worth 
$1,000  is  inevitably  assessed  at  a  figure  much  nearer  its  true 
value  than  one  worth  $20,000  or  $50,000     .      .     . 

"A  final  form  of  injustice  worked  by  the  general  property  tax 
is  double  taxation  that  frequently  results." 

And  I  want  to  say.  Gentlemen,  that  I  do  not  think  th'at  the 
legislature  of  the  state  would  have  had  so  much  insight  on  this 
subject  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  question  of  double  taxation 
which  exists.  And,  after  discussing  still  further,  he  says,  as  to 
the  remedy: 

"We  have  seen  that,  under  growing  dissatisfaction  with  the 
obvious  results  of  the  old  system,  tax  commissions  have  been 
from  time  to  time  appointed  by  'the  various  states  to  discover 
a  remedy.  We  have  seen,  too,  that  most  of  these,  under  the 
influence  of  ultra-conservative  feeling,  have  reported  plans  for 
the  more  rigid  enforcement  of  the  law.  In  most  cases  the  leg- 
islatures failed  to  adopt  their  reports.  Where  the  attempt  was 
made,  only  greater  evil  was  the  result.  Perhaps  the  most 
•strenuous  effort  to  enforce  the  general  property  tax  is  to  be 
found  in  Ohio,  under  the  well-named  'tax  inquisitor  system,* 
which  had  the  unhappy  result  of  bringing  practically  no  addi- 
tional revenue  into  the  treasury,  exasperating  the  public,  and 
driving  a  large  amount  of  property  out  of  the  state. 

"The  best  proposal,  and  the  one  indorsed  by  the  Federal  In- 
dustrial Commission,  after  an  exhaustive  inquiry  into  the  con- 
dition, is  to  separate  entirely  the  sources  of  state  and  local 
revenue,  and  to  abandon  the  general  property  tax  as  a  state 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  257 

tax.  The  state  revenue  could  then  be  derived  from  taxes  on 
corporations,  franchises,  inheritances,  incomes  and  other 
sources,  while  the  local  revenues  w^ould  be  supplied  either  by 
the  general  property  tax,  as  the  Industrial  Commission  sug- 
gests, or,  better  still,  from  a  tax  on  real  estate,  supplemented 
by  taxes  at  perhaps  varying  rates  on  certain  specified  classes 
of  personal  property,  and  certain  local  business  or  license  taxes. 
In  this  way  the  general  property  tax  would  be  everywhere 
abandoned,  and  its  place  taken  by  a  system  more  in  accord- 
ance with  modern  views  of  justice  and  equity  in  taxation." 

Now,  Gentlemen,  if  you   separate  your  local  tax  from  your 
state  tax  in  that  way,  the  first  great  result, — and  I  wish,  Gen- 
tlemen, you  would  notice  it  because  it  is  an  important  one, — the 
first   great    result  to   the   state  of  New  Hampshire,    taking  its 
revenue  from  the  sources  which  have  been  indicated  there,  and 
making   it    entirely   separate    from    any    general   property   tax, 
would  be  that  no  town  or  city  in  New  Hampshire  would  pay  any 
longer  a  state  tax,  and  the  question  which  is  puzzling  our  Tax 
Commission  as  to  the  valuation  of  this  town  or  that  town,  or 
this  city  or  that  city,  would  disappear.     The  people  would  no 
longer  be  interested  in  it.     The  only  tax  left  which  would  cause 
the  people  of  the  counties  to  sit  up  and  take  notice  would  be 
the  county  taxes,   and  they  would  insist  that  they  be  propor- 
tioned just  as  they  do  now.     You  see.  Gentlemen,  no  one  man 
could  exhaust  this  subject,  or  else  we  would  not  be  having  these 
books  published  every  year  with  things  that  men  say  on  tax- 
ation.   It  is  as  old  as  the  world,  because  it  was  the  first  thing 
that  had  to  be  resorted  to  when  we  came  out  of  savagery,  and 
the  man  who  thinks  he  can  abolish  all  taxation  will  be  favor- 
ing  the   policy   which   will  finally   end   in    such   a   condition   of 
men   that  they  will  not  care  to  pay  any  taxes,  and  they  will 
relapse    into    savagery.     Now,    the    power   of    the    legislature  is 
final  as  to  taxation.     It  is  not  only  final  but  it  is  a  tremendous 
power.     It  is  a  power  where  men  can  use  discretion,  or  a  power 
they   can   thoroughly  abuse.     It  is   a  power  that  can  be   exer- 
cised in  passion  and  prejudice,  or  a  power  that  can  be  exercised 
beneficially  for  the  whole   community  as  we  stand  today,  and 
without    any   desire   to    make    a   revolution   in   the    tax   system 
of   the    state    of   New   Hampshire,    although   I   sometimes   fear 
another  method,  which  will  allow  the  classification  of  property 
for    taxation.        Yet,    as    we    stand    today    and    as    a    practical 
question  with  this  terrible  inequality  confronting  us,  taxation 
of  intangible  property,  and  the  effect  it  is  having  on  the  citizens 
of  our  state,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  resolution  which  has  been 
brought  in  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  as 


258     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

amended  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  as  added  to  by  the  other  resolu- 
tion, which  imposed  a  graded  income  tax  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire.  And  let  no  man  fear  because  an  income  tax  is 
imposed  in  the  state  that  it  means  they  are  going  to  take  im- 
mediately ten  percent  of  his  income.  The  graded  income  tax, 
and  that  is  one  that  is  reached  with  discrimination  and  judg- 
ment by  the  legislature,  will  not  go  on  robbing  people,  but  it 
will  produce  more  income  to  cities  and  towns  from  intangibles, 
and  it  will  be  a  help  to  the  farmer  because  it  will  materially 
relieve  the  state  from  the  necessity  of  levying  the  large  prop- 
erty tax  which  it  now  levies  on  the  towns  and  cities  in  the 
state.  I  do  not  fear  it.  There  was  a  time  when  I  believed,  as 
I  have  heard  it  argued  here,  that  you  could  not  enforce  it;  but 
I  do  not  think  so  now,  and  I  believe  the  Constitution  should  be 
amended  and  so  enable  us  to  try  it. 

There  is  no  sense  of  justice,  Gentlemen,  in  allowing  five  per- 
cent mortgages  to  go  untaxed  in  savings  banks,  or  elsewhere, 
and  taxing  a  six  percent  mortgage  note,  no  sense  or  justice  in 
it,  and  there  is  no  sense  in  double  taxation.  One  man  said  to 
me,  "Taxes  on  j^our  municipal  bonds  are  not  cases  of  double 
taxation."  But  I  told  him  that  when  you  issue  bonds  in  the 
city  of  Laconia,  they  are  mortgages  on  property  there,  and  if 
you  allow  them  to  be  taxed  you  are  simply  taxing  property  that 
has  already  been  taxed.  Corporation  bonds  and  city  bonds 
stand  upon  the  same  basis,  and  it  is  double  taxation  that  is 
making  the  trouble;  and  if  a  graded  income  tax  is  allowed  on 
incomes  from  intangibles,  it  will  tend  to  stop  it;  it  will  tend 
to  stop  the  agitation  and  all  the  talk  that  the  rich  man  doesn't 
pay  any  taxes.  He  will  pay  taxes  then  by  levying  taxes  on  his 
income.  A  man  who  has  $100,000  will  be  paying  taxes  on  his 
income;  a  man  who  gets  $6,000  from  his  stocks  or  bonds  will 
pay  his  proper  income  .tax,  which  may  be  a  five  percent  tax  or 
may  be  less.  If  the  savings  banks  were  only  paying  five  per- 
cent income  tax  it  would  not  be  fair  to  charge  an  individual 
any  more. 

Much  more  I  would  like  to  say  on  this  subject,  but  I  have  al- 
ready taken  up  too  much  of  your  time.  Gentlemen,  I  thank 
you  for  your  attention. 

Mr.  Whitcomb  of  Sicanzey. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  wish  to  take 
up  your  time,  and  am  sorry  to  take  it  up.  There  are  a  few 
ideas  I  would  like  to  express  on  my  behalf  here'.  In  the  first 
place,  as  far  as  my  observation  goes,  the  legislature  has  ex- 
empted from  taxation  all  that  they  see  fit.  In  the  first  place, 
they  exempt  manufactories, — that  is,  the  towns  do, — to  encour- 
age them   to  build.       Then  they   exempt,  as  I  understand  it, 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  259 

land  that  is  made  of  swamp  land.  They  exempt  land  where 
they  set  out  pine  trees.  If  they  have  not,  I  hope  this  Conven- 
tion will  not  do  it. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  forest  trees,  we  would  be  glad  to  pre- 
serve them,  what  we  could,  but  there  is  another  side  to  it. 
We  would  like  to  have  the  manufacturers  come  into  our  town; 
we  exempt  them  from  taxation  for  a  number  of  years,  build 
them  buildings  and  buy  them  land.  There  is  one  thing  cer- 
tain, we  cannot  manufacture  woodenware  unless  we  cut  off 
some  of  our  trees.  Xow  take  it  in  our  little  town  of  Swanzey, 
I  think  there  is  an  income  of  about  five  hundred  or  six  hundred 
dollars  from  the  manufacture  of  wooden  ware.  Now  the  manu- 
facturers of  woodenware  are  not  such  fellows  that  they  will 
destroy  any  more  timber  than  they  need.  If  I  understand  it 
right,  the  Canadian  government  will  not  allow  any  manu- 
factured lumber  to  come  into  the  United  States.  I  was  talk- 
ing with  our  selectman,  and  he  said  he  hadn't  figured  it  out  ex- 
actly, but  he  thought  there  is  one  half  the  valuation  in  Swan- 
zey that  is  in  sprout  and  timberland. 

Now  there  is  another  thing.  We  have  got  to  encourage 
people  to  do  more  farming,  and  unless  we  do,  the  necessaries  of 
life  will  be  higher  than  now.  Now  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  let 
the  land  grow  up  and  become  sprout  land.  Now  if  we  lumber- 
men would  take  a  little  more  interest  and  leave  some  scrubby 
trees  that  are  not  good  for  anything  for  lumber,  the  pine  tim- 
ber would  come  up  quickly  and  grow  quickly.  I  was  thinking 
of  a  lot  my  father  bought  about  fifty  years  ago,  and  there 
was  some  small  pine  coming  up  on  it.  My  brother  sold  it  about 
a  year  ago,  and  in  that  lot  there  were  a  good  many  rotten  trees. 
When  the  manufacturers  of  lumber  want  that  lot,  I  can  see  no 
reason  why  he  shouldn't  cut  it  off.  I  -do  not  believe  in  crowd- 
ing up  the  sprout  land  too  high,  but  put  it  on  a  fair  valuation. 
I  do  not  see  why  we  should  encourage  people  to  put  their 
money  into  bonds.  If  they  want  to  put  it  into  bonds,  let  them 
pay  taxes  on  it.  But  I  can  see  what  good  it  will  do  if  they 
will  lend  the  money  to  people  who  want  to  go  to  farming  but 
haven't  money  enough  to  pay  for  their  farm. 

Mr.  Dean  of  Banbury. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  like  the 
gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Busiel,  I  sympathize  with  some 
things  that  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  has  said.  I 
especially  sympathize  with  the  farmer  who  lost  the  sheep  where 
the  tax  was  ten  cents.  We  have  been  realizing  for  a  number 
of  years  there  is  something  wrong  with  taxation  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  we  have  examined  the  matter  and  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  while  equality  in  taxation  is  a  beautiful  theory. 


260    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

practically,  it  has  not  worked  out.  We  are  approaching  this 
subject  with  extreme  trepidation.  We  all  realize  the  import- 
ance of  the  subject.  We  realize  that  there  are  some  things  that 
are  not  being  classified  that  taxes  bear  on  wrongly,  and  many 
men  have  ideas  of  driving  in  a  wedge  here  and  there.  The  sub- 
ject has  been  clearly  and  extensively  discussed.  If  we  pass  it, — 
and  possibly  we  will  have  three  amendments  presented  instead 
of  one, — we  may  put,  in  some  towns,  half  or  two  thirds  of  the 
property  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature  to  classify  or  not,  as 
it  sees  fit.  If  the  legislature  is  capable  of  classifying  for  the 
interests  of  the  state  a  portion  of  the  property,  why  not  the 
whole?  I  believe  the  resolution  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Landaff  to  be  the  clearest  and  most  comprehensive  reso- 
lution introduced  here.  I  believe  the  time  has  come  when  we 
can  leave  to  the  legislature  all  this  subject  of  the  classification 
of  property  for  taxation.- 

Mr.  Hohbs  of  Wolfehoro. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  am  to  take  but  a  very  few  moments  of  your 
time  today.     I  have  not  come  here  prepared  to  talk  on  taxation. 

The  question  before  the  Convention  is,  shall  we  open  up  the 
Constitution  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  so  that  the  legis- 
lature may  act  intelligently  upon  the  question  of  taxation?  I  am 
very  much  pleased  to  find  my  friends  so  well  united  upon  one 
proposition,  and  that  is  the  income  tax.  I  believe,  Sir,  there 
has  been  no  opposition  to  that;  much  different  than  it  was  here 
at  our  legislature  a  little  more  than  one  year  ago.  I  might, 
however,  if  we  were  discussing  that  question,  draw  some  of  the 
fire  of  the  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Busiel,  who  has  just 
preceded  me,  on  the  income  tax  as  applied  to  our  state  and  not 
to  our  federal  government.  It  is  a  fact  that  when  you  take  an 
Income  tax  in  your  own  state,  and  the  states  about  you  do  not, 
they  may  get  some  of  your  income,  and  you  might  not  get  the 
tax.  When  you  have  a  federal  income  tax,  all  states  get  it 
alike.  I  am  not  opposed  to  a  state  income  tax.  I  believe  in  a 
state  income  tax  and  also  in  a  federal  income  tax.  The  gen- 
tlemen may  say  that  is  double  taxation,  but  we  tax  every  per- 
son with  a  tax  for  our  town,  a  tax  for  our  county,  our  state, 
and  also  for  the  nation.  All  taxes  are  from  incomes.  If  I  earn 
a  dollar  a  day,  it  is  the  income  I  have  which  I  pay,  and  many 
of  us  pay  it  to  the  federal  government  through  the  tariff.  The 
very  buttons  on  my  clothes  to-day  are  taxed  at  127  percent.  We 
are  not  here  to  discuss  that,  Mr.  Chairman.     But  to  the  point: 

Shall  we  open  up  our  Constitution,  and  how  far?  Conditions 
are  changing  all  the  time.  Population  is  increasing  and,  I  hope, 
intelligence.     Under  the  laws  of  our  state  we  are  taxing  bonds 


Thursday,  June  13,  lyl2.  261 

and  not  stocks,  and  I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  Resolutions 
No.  5  and  No.  37,  as  put  in,  give  exemption  to  stocks  frorti  tax- 
ation and  tax  bonds.  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men, what  is  the  difference  between  the  stocks  and  the  bonds, 
so  far  as  the  property  is  concerned?  Take  the  Boston  &  Maine 
Railroad,  or  the  Amoskeag-  corporation.  A  part  of  those  prop- 
erties were  built  and  put  in  operation  by  the  bonds  and  part 
by  stock.  Are  not  both  of  them  representative  of  these  prop- 
erties?    I  think  they  are. 

Again,  shall  we  open  up  the  Constitution  so  that  the  legis- 
latures that  are  to  follow  us  can  take  into  consideration  all  of 
the  properties  and  act  upon  them  intelligently,  justly  and 
rightly?  Mr.  Chairman,  if  these  people  are  so  afraid  to  trust 
the  legislators,  then  I  ask  them  to  adopt  the  proposition  which 
I  feel  so  miu:h  interested  in  here,  and  have  given  my  time  on 
until  today,  that  proposition  which  the  gentleman  from  La- 
conia  refers  to  as  revolutionizing  our  Constitution,  the  initi- 
ative and  referendum.  Then  their  acts  go  back  to  the  people, 
and  they  can  veto  them  if  they  wish.  One  thing  right  here  I 
want .  to  say  on  that  matter,  and  it  just  occurs  to  me.  Every 
act  and  every  proposition  that  we  pass  on  here  today,  or  dur- 
ing this  Convention,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  this  state 
wisely  put  in  that  every  act  should  be  referred  to  the  people. 
And,  Sir,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  they  are  to  overlook  our  doings  and 
approve  or  veto  them,  why  should  we  hesitate  to  let  those  who 
are  to  follow  us  in  legislation, — why  should  we  hesitate  to  let 
their  acts  be  referred  to  the  same  tribunal? 

But,  Sir,  to  the  point  again.  Gentlemen,  shall  we  here  allow 
the  special  interests  to  put  into  this  Constitution  what  they 
wish,  and  at  the  same  time  shut  out  those  propositions  which 
a  great  majority  of  the  taxpayers  of  New  Hampshire  should 
have?  That  is  the  proposition  before  this  Convention  todays 
and  it  is  not  justice.  Far  from  it!  I  warn  you.  Gentlemen, 
that  it  is  for  us  here  to  see  that  justice  to  all  is  done.  Let  us 
stand  for  justice  and  for  the  right,  and  when  we  open  up  the 
question  of  taxation,  leave  it  in  fuK  to  the  legislature.  If  you 
are  afraid  to  trust  the  legislature,  let  its  work  be  reviewed  by 
the  people,  the  same  as  we  here  will  have  to  have  our  work 
reviewed. 

As  I  said  a  moment  ago — I  leave  this  question  with  you  and 
I  hope  not  to  speak  on  it  again — the  point  at  issue  is,  shall  we 
let  in  all  the  special  interests  and  shut  out  all  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  taxpayers?  I  believe.  Sir,  that  we  should  leave  the 
matter,  so  our  legislature  may  wisely,  may  justly  tax  the  prop- 
erties,  all  the   properties,   of  the   state   as  in   their  judgment. 


262    Journal  of  Constitutional  (Convention. 

after  they  have  viewed  the  situation,  seems  equitable  and  right. 
I  believe  that  is  the  only  intelligent  and  the  only  right  way  to 
leave  this  matter. 

Therefore  I  urge  the  adoption  of  the  armeiidment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  No.  33,  I  think  it  is.  I  thank 
you,  Gentlemen. 

Mr.  Burnham  of  Dunbarton. — I  think  it  is  universally  conceded 
that  double  taxation  is  both  unwise  and  unjust,  and  I  think 
if  there  is  any  class  of  property  which  should  be  exempt  from 
taxation  in  any  way  it  is  the  class  of  property  that  has  not 
been  mentioned  in  any  of  the  resolutions  that  are  brought  up 
for  our  consideration,  and  I  refer  to  that  property  on  which  a 
man  pays  a  tax  to  the  full  value  of  the  property  and  which 
virtually  doesn't  belong  to  him  because  he  owes  for  four  fifths 
of  it.  He  may  have  paid  a  small  amount  and  there  is  a  mortgage 
on  the  property  for  four  fifths,  or  one  half,  its  value. 

Take,  for  instance,  here  is  a  man  who  has  a  farm  and  tim- 
berland  worth  ten  thousand  dollars.  For  a  number  of  years  he 
has  paid  taxes  for  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars.  Well, 
a  y)urchaser  comes  along  one  day  and  he  sells  that  property  for 
ten  thousand  dollars.  He  gets  one  thousand  in  cash,  and  takes 
a  note  for  nine  thousand,  secured  by  mortgage  on  that  farm. 
From  this  time  on,  the  purchaser  pays  a  tax  on  this  real  estate 
to  its  full  value  of  ten  thousand  dollars.  The  man  who  sells 
it  pays  a  tax  on  nine  thousand  dollars,  money  at  interest.  In 
one  hour's  time,  one  stroke  of  the  pen,  there  is  nine  thousand 
dollars  added  to  the  taxable  property  of  that  town.  Any  jus- 
tice, any  equity  in  this?  I  say,  if  there  is  any  class  of  prop- 
erty that  should  in  any  wise  be  exempted,  that  this  property 
should  be  included  in  the  list. 

Mr.  Rowe  of  Kensington. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  know 
when  I  show  myself  down  here  in  front  I  run  the  risk  of  hav- 
ing remarks  made  about  my  personal  appearance,  but  I  am 
going  to  run  the  chance,  although  I  haven't  the  dramatic  abil- 
ity necessary  to  answer  those  charges.  If  I  had  I  would  answer 
them. 

Gentlemen,  for  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Jaffrey  I  have  all  the  respect  in  the  world.  I  like 
them  for  this  reason,  if  for  none  other,  that  when  they  have 
anything  to  say  they  talk  about  their  arguments  with  some- 
thing that  seems  to  them  proof. 

Yesterday,  in  my  small  way,  I  tried  to  convert  them  to  the 
belief  that  we  could  leave  these  things  to  the  legislature.  I 
did  not  believe  that  over  night  they  would  be  converted  to  what 
I  said.     I  did  not  think  they  would  come  in  here  this  morning 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  263 

or  afternoon  and  wish  to  g-o  so  far  as  they  do.  Now  they  are 
willing,  evidently,  to  leave  everything  wide  open  and  leave  the 
legislature  to  go  as  far  as  it  chooses.  That  goes  farther  than 
I  have  gone,  in  support  of  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fel- 
lows. 

This  talk  has  suggested  to  me  the  rules  of  a  race  that  the 
Greeks  used  to  adopt,  which  were  that  each  runner  was  to 
carry  a  torch,  and  the  winner  was  the  runner  who  crossed  the 
line  with  his  torch  still  burning.  The  object  lesson  was  to  keep 
their  torch  of  life  still  burning;  so  I  say  we  should  go  slowly 
in  these  things.  We  should  go  over  the  line  with  our  torch 
still  burning.  Therefore  I  agree  with  Kesolution  No.  5.  And 
I  wish  to  suggest  this  in  closing.  We  have  had  a  full  and  fair 
discussion.  We  have  talked  here  all  day  about  this.  It  is  get- 
ting toward  night  and,  while  I  do  not  wish  to  hurry  this,  I 
suggest  we  now  get  down  to  business  and  try  to  bring  this 
matter  to  a  head. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord. — I  had  expected  when  this  subject 
of  taxation  came  up  to  confine  myself  to  a  discussion  of  the 
reasons  for  a  special  rate  of  taxation  on  forest  lands,  growing 
wood  and  forest  lands.  The  subject  has  been  very  fully  covered 
by  other  speakers.  I  will  say  a  word,  however,  from  the  stand- 
point of  one  who  is  greatly  interested  in  forest  protection 
societies,  that  it  is  generally  recognized  by  those  who  have 
special  knowledge  on  that  subject  that  taxation  at  market  valu- 
ation is  the  greatest  obstacle  that  exists  today  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  our  forested  lands.  The  selectmen  of  the  different 
towns  for  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years,  without  any  author- 
ity in  the  law,  but  by  the  application  of  a  very  wise  discretion, 
have  assessed  growing  timberlands  very  far  below  the  value 
which  they  knew  those  lands  had.  And  I  imagine  they  might 
have  gone  on  in  that  way,  using  their  common  sense  and  keep- 
ing the  timberlands  growing,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  fact 
that  our  State  Tax  Commission  considered,  under  their  oath, 
that  they  were  bound  to  see  that  the  law  was  enforced.  I  state 
without  fear  of  contradiction  that  if  the  timberlands  of  this 
state  are  taxed  annually  at  their  full  value  there  won't  be  a  tree 
in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  big  enough  to  make  a  box  board 
in  ten  years  from  this  date. 

Now,  as  I  said  the  other  day,  we  are  not  dealing  with  the 
question  of  exempting  this  property;  we  are  not  dealing  with 
any  particular  method  of  taxing  this  property;  we  are  merely 
giving  to  the  legislature  the  power,  which  I  believe  they  may 


264    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

possibly  have  now,  but  the  power  which  some  of  ns  believe  they 
ought  to  have,  to  classify  this  property  for  a  tax  on  the  land  at 
such  proper  valuation  as  they  may  see  fit  to  fix,  and  a  deferred 
tax  on  the  timber  itself,  to  be  collected  when  the  timber  is  cut. 
In  other  words,  instead  of  doing-  as  we  do  under  the  present 
system,  placing*  an  annual  fine  on  a  man  for  allowing  his  tim- 
ber to  stand,  let  us  make  an  arrangement  so  that  we  shall,  in 
a  sense,  discourage  his  cutting  it  by  piling  up  a  tax  which  will 
be  collected  when  he  does  cut  it,  a  tax  perhaps  of  twenty  or 
twenty-five  percent  of  its  stumpage  value. 

There  is  just  one  situation  that  is  troublesome  in  regard  to 
that.  There  are  many  towns  in  this  state  where  a  large  major- 
ity, in  some  cases  a  very  large  majority,  of  the  tax  valuation 
of  the  town  is  in  timberlands;  in  many  cases  timberlands  un- 
der the  ownership  of  large  corporate  owners,  and  those  towns 
need  the  taxation  from  those  lands  in  order  to  maintain  their 
highways  and  their  schools  properly.  Now  some  laws  have  got 
to  be  provided  to  deal  with  that  situation,  and  in  the  bill  in- 
troduced in  the  legislature,  about  which  I  spoke  the  other  day, 
that  was  provided  in  this  way,  that  lands  should  not  be  clas- 
sified, or  it  should  not  be  permissible  to  classify  lands,  if  the 
growth  on  them  exceeded  a  certain  number  of  years  on  the 
average.  That  is,  if  it  was  matured  timber  which  was  being 
held,  which  ought  to  be  cut,  that  the  legislature  might  levy  the 
tax  on  its  value,  because  one  of  the  truest  principles  of  for- 
estry is  that  when  the  crop  is  ready  for  harvesting,  it  shall 
be  harvested. 

It  is  sometimes  thought  that  forestry  consists  in  preventing 
the  harvesting  of  timber,  and  the  gentleman  from  Swanzey,  I 
think, .  thought  if  you  could  not  cut  the  timber  you  could  not 
run  your  woodenware  industries.  The  woodenware  industries 
in  the  state,  including  the  paper  mills,  will  have  to  go  out  of 
business  if  we  cut  off  our  timber.  True  forestry  consists  in 
stimulating  the  growth  of  timber,  securing  the  largest  crop 
from  the  land,  and  having  a  steady  supply,  so  that  our  indus- 
tries may  go  on  indefinitely  for  the  prosperity  of  the  state. 
That  is  what  I  desire  to  say  on  that  particular  branch  of  this 
question. 

Now  I  find  myself  in  a  particularly  happy  situation  in  regard 
to  this  taxation  matter.  I  am  thoroughly  in  favor  of  Resolution 
No.  5.  I  am  thoroughly  in  favor  of  the  amendment  brought  in  by 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  because  I  believe  it  to  be  a  clearer 
statement  of  the  situation,  and  expressing,  perhaps,  in  more  un- 
mistakable language  what  it  means.  I  find  myself  still  more 
in  favor  of  the  suggestion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Ports- 


Thursday,  June  13,  19V2.  265 

mouth  because  it  carries  the  exception  still  further  and  per- 
mits an  income  tax  on  the  income  derived  from  stocks.  Now 
I  recognize  as  much  as  anybody  does  that  stocks  and  bonds  are 
different;  I  recognize  that  cows  and  horses  are  different;  I 
recognize  that  wagons  and  automobiles  are  different;  but 
the  fact  that  things  are  different  does  not  necessarily  make 
one  a  fit  subject  for  taxation,  or  the  other  an  unfit  sub- 
ject for  taxation.  I  believe  that  the  income  tax  idea  as  ap- 
plied to  the  income  from  stocks  and  bonds  and  notes — in  other 
words,  this  large  class  which  is  called  intangibles — I  beliere 
that  such  an  income  tax  as  that,  on  a  graded,  reasonable  basis, 
is  the  best  solution  of  this  intangible  taxation  proposition  that 
has  been  offered  to  this  Convention,  and  I  am  thoroughly  in 
favor  of  that;  but  the  thing  that  I  really  believe  in,  the  thing  I 
want  to  recommend  this  Convention  to  vote  for,  is  the  resolution 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens, 

Every  authf  rity  on  taxation  that  you  can  consult,  every  in- 
telligent and  learned  man  who  has  discussed  this  question  be- 
fore every  tax  gathering  we  have  had  in  this  country  in  the 
last  five  years,  including  our  own  Tax  Commission,  when  they 
were  acting  as  such,  but  not,  it  seems,  when  they  are  acting 
as  delegates  to  this  Convention, — every  one  of  these  authorities 
has  expressed  itself  unhesitatingly  in  favor  of  the  proposal  to 
leave  the  question  of  taxation  with  the  legislature,  subject  only 
to  the  limitation  that  it  shall  be  a  reasonable  method.  Every 
argument  that  has  been  presented  here  today  in  favor  of  re- 
storing to  the  word  "proportional"  the  meaning  which  I  be- 
lieve the  framers  of  the  Constitution  understood  it  had  when 
they  adopted  it, — every  argument  of  that  kind  is  an  argument  in 
favor  of  leaving  this  question  of  classification  of  property  to 
the  legislature.  Now  it  is  not  a  question  of  theory,  it  isn't  the 
suggestion  of  amateurs  in  government  that  I  am  referring  to;  it 
is  a  practical  suggestion,  and  I  do  not  think  it  does  any  good, 
and,  on  the  other  haiid,  I  do  not  think  it  does  any  harm,  to 
refer  to  this  suggestion  I  am  making  as  revolutionary.  A  revo- 
lution which  depends  upon  the  votes  of  two  thirds  of  the  vot- 
ers, after  having  an  opportunity  to  consider  and  discuss  a  ques- 
tion, isn't  a  very  dangerous  kind  of  revolution,  and  if  that  is 
what  my  distinguished  friend  from  Laconia  means  by  revo- 
lution, I  can  refer  back  to  the  words  of  one  of  our  old  patri- 
ots and  say,  "Let  him  make  the  most  of  it." 

Now  the  practical  reasons  for  leaving  these  matters  to  the 
legislature  were  touched  upon  this  morning  by  the  gentleman 
from  Landaff,  and  we  might  just  as  well  take  the  paper  right 
off  this  package  and  see  what  is  in  it.     The  reason   why  I  am 


266      Journal  of  Constitutional  (yONVENTioN. 

in  favor  of  leaving  this  matter  to  the  legislature  is'  because  I 
think  that  the  railroads  and  the  other  public  service  corpora- 
tions ought  to  be  taxed,  not  on  the  basis  of  the  valuation  of 
their  property,  but  on  the  basis  of  their  gross  income.  I  be- 
lieve that  that  tax  is  the  most  just,  is  the  fairest,  is  the  easi- 
est collected,  and  on  the  whole  produces  the  best  results  for 
the  people,  the  other  taxpayers,  and  for  the  corporation  itself. 
How^  many  gentlemen  in  this  Convention  realize  that  the  state 
of  New^  Hampshire  has  three  railroad  tax  appeals  on  its  hands 
now,  and  I  have  the  misfortune,  perhaps,  to  be  counsel  for  the 
state  in  two  of  them.  The  Grand  Trunk  Railroad — I  am  not 
going  to  introduce  any  railroad  issue  here  if  I  can  help  it,  and 
if  you  can  find  out  which  way  I  am  on  the  Grand  Trunk  and 
Boston  &  Maine  situation,  you  will  do  better  than  I  can — the 
Grand  Trunk  has  appealed  each  year  during  the  last  three  years 
from  the  taxation  under  our  present  system.  The  old  Board 
of  Equalization  taxed  them  a  certain  amount,  and  they  ap- 
pealed, and  that  case  is  now  being  tried  and  will  be  argued 
within  a  few  days  before  a  board  of  referees.  Then  we  got  a 
new  board;  we  got  what  some  people  thought  was  this  new- 
fashioned  board  of  Tax  Commissioners,  the  chairman  of  which 
is  a  member  of  this  Convention.  They  did  the  best  they  could 
under  the  law,  and  taxed  the  railroads,  and  the  Grand  Trunk 
Railroad,  acting  under  their  constitutional  and  statutory  rights, 
took  another  appeal,  and  that  will  be  argued  before  a  court  of 
record.  With  that  experience  before  them,  the  Tax  Commis- 
sion tried  again,  and  taxed  them  again  last  year,  and  again 
they  have  appealed,  and  that  has  not  got  before  the  board  of 
referees  yet,  and  has  not  been  tried.  Now  the  Grand  Trunk 
has  a  perfect  right  to  appeal  under  the  Constitution  and  laws 
as  they  are  today.  They  have  a  perfect  right  to  go  all  over  this 
state  to  find  out  how  much  your  property  and  my  property  is 
undervalued,  and  if  they  are  entitled  to  redress  they  ought  to 
have  it;  but  my  proposition  is  that  the  system  they  use  in  the 
state  of  Maine  and  very  many  other  states,  of  taxing  these  pub- 
lic service  corporations  on  the  basis  of  gross  income,  is  the  most 
reasonable  and  most  feasible.  It  does  no  harm  to  the  corpora- 
tion, and  it  does  a  great  deal  of  good  instead,  because  it  is  a 
certain,  quick  and  equitable  method  of  taxation. 

I  am  a  little  troubled  by  what  might  be  termed  the  parlia- 
mentary situation.  The  President  of  this  Convention,  for  whom 
we  all  have  the  most  profound  respect,  undoubtedly  with  the 
intention  of  getting  progress  here,  has  made  a  motion,  the  sub- 
stance of  which  is  that  this  Convention  express  its  sentiment 
in  favor  of  the  plan  proposed,  this  three-cornered  plan,  as  you 


ThTUKSDAY,  June  13,  1912.  267 

inig-ht  call  it,  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  as 
amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  and  as  amplified  by 
the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth.  Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, if  that  is  the  best  we  can  get,  that  is  what  I  want,  but 
if  I  can  get  something  better  I  am  going  after  it,  and  I 
know  of  but  one  way  to  get  it,  and  that  is  to  bring  this  reso- 
lution of  the  gentleman  from  Landaf?  to  a  vote.  And  I  do  not 
know  of  any  way  to  do  that  excepting  to  appear  in  opposition 
to  the  President  of  this  Convention  and  these  very  distinguished 
colleagues  of  mine  from  Ward  4.  Now  I  am  not  in  any  oppo- 
sition to  them;  I  believe  in  all  they  want,  and  more,  too.  But 
in  order  to  get  a  vote  on  this  question,  in  order  to  get  myself  a 
chance  to  vote  on  this  question,  I  am  bound  to  offer  some 
amendment  to  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester,  Mr.  Jones. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord  moved  to  amend  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  "legislature,"  and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "the  right  to  impose  and  levy  reasonable  assess- 
ments, rates  and  taxes,  and  to  classify  property  for  taxation, 
substantially  as  provided  in  Kesolution  No.  33,  offered  by  Mr. 
Stevens  of  Landaff,"  so  that  the  resolution  as  amended  shall 
read  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Committee  that  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  which  will  give  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  im- 
pose and  levy  reasonable  assessments,  rates  and  taxes,  and  to 
classify  property  for  taxation,  substantially  as  provided  in  Kes- 
olution No.  33,  offered  by  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaft*. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of 
Concord, — 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord. — Notice  the  word  reasonable.  The 
gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  seem  to  worship  the  word  pro- 
portional. They  say  this  word  proportional  is  one  of  the  fin- 
est words  in  the  English  language,  and  then  they  go  on,  some 
of  them  for  an  hour,  to  tell  you  all  the  inequalities  and  injus- 
tices that  have  been  brought  on  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  on 
account  of  the  use  of  the  word  proportional.  I  say  to  this  Con- 
vention that  the  word  reasonable  means  something,  and  I  am 
willing,  for  one,  to  trust  this  question  to  the  legislature  of  the 

i 


268    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

state.  I  confess  I  should  have  been  better  satisfied  to  have 
trusted  it  to  the  legislature  of  the  state  with  the  referendum 
on  it,  but  I  am  always  glad  to  take  part  when  I  cannot  get  the 
whole,  and  I  should  like  to  see  the  legislature  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  consisting  of  a  House  perhaps  somewhat  re- 
duced, and  a  Senate  perhaps  somewhat  increased,  and  a  Gov- 
ernor elected  after  nomination  by  direct  primary,  decide  these 
questions  until  such  time  as  the  state  and  the  Constitutional 
Convention,  in  their  wisdom,  will  give  us  the  initiative  and 
referendum. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Mancfiestei'. — It  is  now  half  past  four,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Gentlemen,  and  we  are  still  in  the  morning  session 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  a  roll-call  of  this  body  would 
manifest  a  very  deplorable  Tack  of  full  and  complete  attend- 
ance that  ought  to  be  in  this  Convention  when  so  important 
a  matter  is  to  be  voted  upon  as  the  suggestion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Hollis.  If  there  is  to  be  a  vote  upon 
the  resolution  of  Mr.  Stevens,  that  should  be  in  a  full  Conven- 
tion. If  there  is  to  be  a  vote  upon  the  proposition  embodied  in 
the  motion  which  I  made,  a  vote  which  cannot  be  substantially 
unanimous  on  the  part  of  the  members  here,  then  that  should 
be  in  a  full  Convention.  We  should  not,  I  think,  get  a  division 
or  a  vote  which  will  show  sharp  contrasts  and  a  close  vote,  in  a 
Committee  which  is  of  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  w^hole  Con- 
vention as  is  this  Committee  at  this  time.  Now  the  question 
is,  what  shall  we  do,  and  what  can  we  do,  in  order  that  when 
there  comes  a  vote  it  will  be  the  honest  expression  of  every 
member  of  this  Convention  upon  the  propriety  of  one  or  the 
other  of  these  different  schemes,  and  when  shall  we  do  it? 
Shall  we  do  it  with  160  or  170  men  here,  less  than  200,  or  shall 
we   do  it  with  the  full  Convention  here? 

Now  what  I  want  today  is  to  do  something.  I  think  this 
question  of  taxation  has  been  talked  over  completely.  I  think 
that  every  member  of  this  Committee  has  about  made  up  his 
mind  how  he  would  like  to  vote,  but  it  isn't  fair  to  either  of 
the  parties  which  may  not  prevail  in  the  motion  here  to  have 
any  vote  which  will  give  an  indication  of  something  which  may 
be  entirely  wrong  so  far  as  the  expression  of  opinion  of  the 
whole  Convention  is  concerned.  Now  I  am  frank  to  say  that 
I  do  not  yet  know  how  I  should  vote  upon  these  propositions 
if  they  were  to  come  down  for  a  final  decision.  I  have  not  yet 
made  up  my  mind  what  I  would  do.  Now  what  I  undertook  to 
do  this  morning  in  making  the  motion  I  did  was  to  draw  out 
discussion.  Several  gentlemen  had  talked  here  before  and 
every  one  of  them  had  talked  along  the  same  line.     There  had 


Thursday,  June  13,  1912.  269 

been  no  opposition  whatever  to  the  proposition  that  this  Con- 
vention recommend  that  we  have  a  classification  of  certain  in- 
tangibles, and  of  woodlands,  and  the  imposition  of  a  tax  on  the 
income  from  intangibles,  and  there  isn't  any  difference  of 
opinion  here  on  the  part  of  anybody  who  has  spoken  except 
the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  who  evidently  is  opposed  to 
all  the  schemes,  and  perhaps  the  gentleman  from  Swanzey,  Mr. 
Whitcomb.  As  I  have  listened  to  the  speeches  here  today, 
every  man  who  has  spoken  has  been  in  favor  of  these  three 
things   at  least.     Others  wanted  to  go  farther. 

Now  I  am  going  to  ask  you  in  all  fairness  and  candor, 
whether  for  the  sake  of  having  a  full  and  fair  and  complete 
vote  when  it  can  be  binding,  isn't  it  better  not  to  undertake  to 
substitute  one  proposition  for  another  now,  because  there  is 
no  knowing  when  we  would  get  to  a  vote  if  we  undertook  to 
do  it  in  the  Committee  at  the  present  time,  and  draw  the  lines 
sharply?  Isn't  it  better  to  take  these  three  things  which  have 
been  favored  b}^  everj^body  that  has  spoken  on  either  side,  ex- 
cept two, — and  there  has  been  a  score  who  have  spoken,  at 
least, — isn't  it  better  for  us,  at  the  present  time,  to  say  it  is 
our  judgment  that  these  three  things  ought  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  and  then,  having  given  that  expression  as  being  our 
expression  at  the  present  time,  dissolve  this  Committee,  re- 
port all  the  amendments  back,  and  instruct  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department  to  take  them  all  and  to  submit  to  the 
Convention  a  resolution  which  will  embody  these  three  things. 
They  will  get  it  back  into  the  Convention  next  Tuesday,  we  will 
say,  something  which  is  substantially  or  unanimously  the  opin- 
ion of  this  Convention,  if  we  are  going  to  judge  by  the  speeches 
that  have  been  made.  These  three  things  are  agreed  to  by 
everybody,  and  if  the  Committee  should  bring  in  an  amendment 
which  should  cover  them,  then  it  would  come  up  before  the 
Convention.  If  anybody  then  wanted  the  questions  divided, 
there  would  be  a  chance  to  divicje  them,  and  have  your  roll- 
call  on  them,  if  you  want  it,  in  a  full  Convention.  Then  if 
Mr.  Stevens  and  his  friends  want  to  substitute  his,  there  would 
be  a  chance  to  substitute  his  proposition  for  that  of  the  Com- 
mittee, which  seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  this  body  today,  so  far 
as  they  go. 

Now,  won't  we  make  better  progress,  won't  we  get  along 
faster,  if  we  do  that  and  consider  after  we  get  into  Convention 
the  advisability  of  making  this  thing  a  special  order  for  Tues- 
day afternoon  or  Wednesday  morning  next  week,  and  come  back 
here  with  the  idea,  then,  of  deciding  the  question  when  there 
is    a    full    Convention    here,    instead    of    undertaking   to    go    on 


272    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

tee  of  the  Whole,  except  a  rule  limiting  time  of  speaking  and 
the  rule  relating  to  the  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord. — I  had  an  idea  the  Chair  was  mis- 
taken, but  I  could  handle  the  situation  just  as  well  one  way  as 
the  other,  so  long  as  I  knew  what  the  ruling  was.  Now,  then, 
I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  a  quorum  here  or  not,  and  I 
don't  care.  There  is  not  a  large  enough  representation  of  the 
Convention,  of  the  delegates  that  are  elected  here  to  repre- 
sent their  constituents,  to  have  this  question  decided  here  to- 
night, namely,  whether  we  shall  adopt  what  I  will  call  the 
wholesale  plan  of  Mr.  Stevens,  if  you  please,  or  the  retail  plan 
of  my  colleague  from  Ward  4,  and  therefore  I  want  to  make  a 
proposal  that  will  clear  up  the  situation,  and  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  parliamentary  or  not,  but  we  will  find  out  when 
we  get  the  ruling  of  the  chair. 

With  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  and  the 
amendment  thereto  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord,  pend- 
ing,— 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis"  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
now  rise,  report  progress  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again,  on  Tues- 
day, June  18,  at  11.05  o'clock. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Con- 
cord,— 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Conveintion. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Oakes  of  Lisbon,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to 
whom  were  referred  all  resolutions  relating  to  matters  of  taxa- 
tion, having  considered  the  same,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again  at  11.05  o'clock  Tuesday,  June  18. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  leaye  granted. 

(?n  motion  of  Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro, — 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  instructed  to  request  the 


Fkiday  June  14.  1912.  273 

custodian  of  the  State  House  to  raise  the  national  flag  over 
the  State  House  during  the  session  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hayden  of  Hollis,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  5  o'clock. 

Afteoeinoon. 

The  Convention  met  immediately  after  the  morning  ad- 
journment. 

(The  Presidlent  in  the  chair.) 

Leave  of  Abse[N'€e. 

Mr.  Marcotte  of  Rochester  was  granted  leave  of  absence 
for  the  remainder  of  the  week,  on  account  of  important  busi- 
ness. 

Mr.  Carter  of  Lebanon  was  granted  leave  of  absence  until 
Wednesday,  June  19,  on  account  of  important  business. 

,  On  motion  of  Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  5.05  o'clock. 

FRIDAY,  June  14,  1912. 
The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  'adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  Charles  C.  Gar- 
land of  Concord. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lewis  of  Bethlehem,  the  further  reading 
of  the  Journal  was  dispensed  with. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  Messrs.  Waterman  of  Leba- 
non, Storrs  of  Hanover,  and  True  of  Lebanon,  for  the  day,  on 
account  of  important  business. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milf ord,  for 
the  day,  on  account  of  death  in  his  family. 


274    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  Mr.  Tracy  of  Plaihfield,  for 
Tuesday,  June  18,  on  account  of  important  business. 

COMMTTTEE  EePORT. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  for  the  Special  Committee  on 
Woman's  Suffrage,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 'N"o.  49, 
Relating  to  the  Poll  Tax  of  Female  A'^oters,  having  considered 
the  same  report  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  recom- 
mended by  the  Committee, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  when  the  Convention  adjourn  this  morn- 
ing it  adjourn  to  meet  next  Tuesday  at  11  o'clock. 

Change  or  Reference. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster, — 

Resolved,  That  the  order  whereby  Resolution  No.  12,  Re- 
lating to  the  Jurisdiction  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  be  vacated  and  the  same  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  Wason  of  'Nashua. — Mr.  President,  we  have  on  the  table, 
or  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Resolution  No.  24,  which 
was  passed  by  the  Constitutional  Convention  ten  years  ago, 
and  submitted  to  the  people,  and  failed  by  a  small  vote  to  be 
ratified.  I  don't  suppose  there  is  any  contention  about  the 
matter,  and  I  think,  if  we  should  resolve  ourselves  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  we  could  report  and  perhaps  clear  our 
calendar  of  one  measure.  I  think  it  is  advisable  to  get  along 
as  fast  as  we  can. 

On.  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua, — 

.    Resolved,  That  the  Convention  resolve  itself  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  Resolution  No. 


Friday,  June  14,  1912.  275 

24,  To  Strike  Out  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  the  Words  "Evan- 
gelicar^  and  "Protestant/^ 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

(Resolution  read  by  Secretary.) 

Mr.  Wason  of  J^asMta. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  am  not  going*  to  weary  the  faithful  members  of 
this  Convention  who  are  here  present  this  morning;  neither 
am  I  going  to  criticise  the  unfaithful  who  are  absent  without 
leave,  because  I  do  not  like  to  talk  about  a  man  when  he  is  not 
around;  it  is  not  fair.  My  Brother  French  of  Nashua,  who  in- 
troduced this  resolution,  expected  to  be  able  to  be  here  this 
morning,  and  perhaps  he  would  say  just  a  word  in  favor  of  it 
were  he  here.  It  is  not  necessary  to  argue  this  to  you.  It  is 
simply  a  correction  in  our  Constitution  to  conform  to  the 
conditions  of  the  times.  The  language  to  be  stricken  out  is 
the  language  that  has  been  in  the  Constitution  since  it  was 
first  written.  It  has  no  use.  Legally  we  violate  it  every  day; 
I  have  violated  it  myself.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  oppo- 
sition to  it.  Ten  years  ago,  if  you  will  look,  the  vote  that  was 
in  favor  of  it  was  16,611,  and  the  vote  against  it  was  15,727. 
The  matter  was  not  discussed,  was  not  agitated;  people  voted 
upon  it  haphazardly.  I  think  there  would  be  no  objection  on 
the  part  of  any  member  to  this  proposition  being  resubmitted 
to  the  people  for  their  approval  in  order  that  the  useless  words 
shall, — when  I  say  useless  I  mean  because  they  are  not  ob- 
served,— be  rejected  or  taken  from  the  Constitution,  and  then 
our  Constitution,  as  amended  in  this  particular,  would  abso- 
lutely conform  to  the  conditions  that  exist  all  over  the  state, 
from  the  county  of  Coos  to  the  county  of  Hillsborough. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Ando'ver. — I  most  heartily  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man who  has  spoken.  It  is  a  thing  that  is  disregarded.  It  is 
a  disgrace  to  the  intelligence  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire 
to  say  that  only  certain  denominations  of  Christians  are  prac- 
tically under  the  protection  of  the  law.  That  is  what  it  comes 
to.  It  is  a  dead  letter.  It  was  argued  in  the  last  Convention, 
and  submitted.  I  say  frankly,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  do 
not  think  this  goes  far  enough.  I  know  of  no  reason  why  any 
man,  be  he  Christian,  Jew,  Mohammedan,  or  any  other  person, 
who  acts  and  demeans  himself  properly,  and  obeys  the  law, 
should  not  be  under  the  protection  of  the  law.     We  leave  the 


27^     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

word  "Christian"  in,  and  probably  it  is  just  as  well  to  leave 
it  in.  But  how  can  any  man  be  so  narrow  as  to  fail  to  vote 
here  or  before  the  people  to  make  this  amendment?  To  amend 
the  Constitution  in  this  respect  is  to  conform  to  the  spirit  of 
the  age. 

Mr.  WMtcher  of  Haverhill. — I  want  to  heartily  agree  with  what 
has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  and  also  the 
gentleman  from  Andover.  We  have  a  couple  of  words  that  are 
obsolete,  as  far  as  the  conditions  are  today  concerned.  I  think 
it  would  be  extremely  difficult  to  find  what  is  meant  by  the 
word  "Evangelical."  We  all  know  what  the  word  "Protestant" 
means.  I  think  they  should  both  be  out  if  we  take  "Evangeli- 
cal" out.  It  seems  it  ought  to  be  out.  I  don't  think  we  need 
any  long  discussion  on  the  matter.  It  seems  to  me  the  matter 
was  discussed  thoroughly  ten  years  ago.  It  was  entirely  agreed 
to  ten  years  ago  by  the  Convention,  and  the  fact  that  there 
was  no  favorable  vote  for  it  came  about  because  there  was 
no  canvass  made  for  it.  Some  people,  good  souls,  were  fright- 
ened because  the  word  "Evangelical"  was  going  out  of  the  Bill 
of  Eights  and  they  were  frightened  because  the  word  "Protes- 
tant" was  going  out.  I  have  known  in  some  other  legislative 
bodies  where  dead  letters  remain  in  the  fundamental  law  be- 
cause they  are  frightened  about  their  going  out. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  that  the  Com- 
mittee rise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  Eesolution 
No.  24,  To  Strike  Out  from  the  Bill  of  Eights  the  Words 
^'EvangelieaF  and  "Protestant,"  he  agreed  to, — 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — I  second  the  motion  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Haverhill,  Mr.  Whitcher. 

Question  being  put,  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Oonteintion. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  24,  To  Strike 
Out  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  the  Words,  "Evangelical"  and 
"Protestant,"  having  considered  the  same,  recommend  that 
the  resolution  be  agreed  to. 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  277 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted, 
and  the  resolution  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention. 

On  motion  oi  Mr.  Wason  of  Xashua  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  10.53  o'clock. 

TUESDAY,  June  18,  1912. 
The  Convention  met  at  11  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  Charles  C.  Gar- 
land, of  Concord. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Norwood  of  Keene,  the  further  reading  of 
the  Journal  was  dispensed  with. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Young  of  Manchester  was  granted  leave  of  absence,  for 
the  day,  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester  was  granted  leave  of  absence, 
for  Tuesday  forenoon,  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Ames  of  Piermont  was  granted  leave  of  absence  on  ac- 
count of  death  in  his  family,  until  such  time  as  he  is  able  to 
return. 

Mr.  Lawrence  of  Haverhill  was  granted  leave  of  absence, 
for  Wednesday  forenoon,  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  f  ot  the  Committee  on  Judicial  De- 
partment, to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  9,  Relating  to 
Tenure  of  Office  of  Certain  Officers,  having  considered  the 
same,  report  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  ithe  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  resolution. 


278     JouiiNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  Dean  of  Dan  bury, — 

Resolved,  That  hereafter,  both  in  Convention  and  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  debate  be  limited  to  ten  minutes  for  each 
speaker  and  no  speaker  be  permitted  to  speak  more  than  twice 
on  the  same  subject  except  by  unanimous  consent. 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord,  that  the  Con- 
vention resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  the  special  order  for  11.05  o'clock,  the 
same  being, — 

Resolution  No.  5,  Eelating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest 
Lands  and  Money  at  Interest. 

Resolution  No.  33,  Relating  to  Taxation. 

Resolution  No.  37,  Relating  to  Income  Tax. 

Resolution  No.  39,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  Lands. 

Resolution  No.  50,  Relating  to  Taxes. 

Resolution  No.  51,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Incomes. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin  in  the  chair.) 

Pending:  The  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Committee  that  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  state  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  which  will  give  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  clas- 
sify intangibles  and  growing  wood  and  timber  for  the  purposes 
of  taxation,  and  to  make  reasonable  exemptions,  and,  further, 
to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  from  intangible  property; 

And  the  motion  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord,  to  amend 
the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  279 

"legislature,"  and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  following 
words:  "the  right  to  impose  and  levy  reasonable  assessments, 
rat^s  and  taxes  and  to  classify  property  for  taxation,  substan- 
tially as  provided  in  Eesolution  No.  33,  offered  by  Mr.  Stevens 
of  Landaff." 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  to 
the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  Chairman,  at  first  blush  the 
amendment  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  is  quite 
impressive;  but  we  are  building  the  Constitution,  not  for  the 
immediate  present,  but  for  time  to  come.  The  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Landafi:  opens  wide  the  door  for  the  legis- 
lature to  classify  all  kinds  of  property,  and  before  the  legis- 
lature would  come,  in  the  course  of  time,  every  interest  to  ask 
that  it  be  speciallj^  considered.  When  this  Convention  was 
called  this  branch  of  the  subject  of  taxation  embraced  just  two 
features,  enabling  the  legislature  to  classify  growing  wood 
and  timber  for  the  purpose  of  taxing  them  at  a  less  rate,  and 
to  classify  intangibles  for  the  purpose  of  deriving  revenue 
therefrom,  in  place  of  attempting  to  tax  them  at  the  full  rate 
that  other  property  is  taxed,  and  thereby  allowing  them  to  es- 
cape taxation.  And,  to  cover  every  point  that  was  desired,  an 
amendment  was  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth, 
which  is  embraced  in  the  Jones  resolution,  giving  the  alterna- 
tive of  taxing  the  income  of  intangibles,  thereby  reaching  any 
class  of  property  that  the  legislature  desires  to  include  within 
the  term  of  intangibles. 

Now,  then,  if  the  Stevens  amendment  had  been  a  part  of  the 
organic  law  ten  or  a  dozen  years  ago,  when  the  corporations 
were  in  Control  in  this  state,  what  would  have  been  its  effect? 
The  corporations  are  able  to  look  out  for  themselves,  and  are 
always  looking  out  for  themselves,  while  the  activity  of  the 
people  is  intermittent.  It  is  true  at  the  present  time  in  our 
legislative  control  the  corporations  have  been  shorn  of  the 
power  that  they  had  ten  or  a  dozen  years  ago,  but  in  the  course 
of  time,  in  the  whirligig  of  changes  that  take  place  in  our  poli- 
tics, the  same  interest  may  be  able  to  take  care  of  itself  as 
effectually  in  the  future  as  it  has  in  the  past.  And  this  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  opens  wide  the  door  for 
the  classification  of  all  kinds  of  f)roperty.  It  is  a  question  in 
my  mind  whether  we  desire  to  open  wide  that  door.  Further- 
more, it  is  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Hoi- 


280    Journal  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

lis,  that  this  be  supplemented  by  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
so  that  the  measures  may  be  referred  to  the  people  for  their 
approval. 

I  desire  to  have  yon  bear  in  mind  two  facts: — the  revenue  of 
this  state  comes  from  the  cities  and  larger  tovs^ns;  the  votes  in 
this  state  come  from  these  same  communities.  The  cities  and 
ten  of  the  large  tow^ns  of  this  state  control  a  majority  of  the 
votes  of  the  state,  and  under  the  Stevens-HoUis  proposition  it 
would  be  within  the  power  of  those  communities  to  control  the 
methods  of  taxation.  Now,  I  believe,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
there  are  before  this  Convention  these  two  distinct  propositions 
to  put  growing  timber  lands  and  intangibles  in  a  classified  list 
for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  one  and  deriving  more 
revenue  from  the  other,  that  we  should  confine  our  labors  to 
what  is  embraced  in  the  Jones  amendment,  and  that  we  should 
defeat  the  Stevens  amendment   in  this  Committee. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — I  want  to  say  just  a  word  in  explana- 
tion of  our  present  tax  system,  so  far  as  the  Constitution  is 
concerned,  and  then  compare  that  briefly  with  what  it  might 
be  if  the  Stevens  amendment  should  be  adopted.  The  whole 
question  of  what  may  be  taxed  is  now  left  by  the  Constitution 
with  the  legislature.  The  Constitution  does  not  name  any  spe- 
cific articles  as  taxable.  It  simply  says  that  persons  and  estates 
are  taxable,  and  the  word  "estates"  is  broad  enough  to  take  in 
any  species  of  property  that  the  legislature  wishes  to  put  on 
the  taxable  list.  You  will  notice  in  the  Stevens  resolution  that 
the  words  "inhabitants"  and  "estates"  are  left  out.  The  broad 
field  of  taxation  is  left  entirely  to  the  legislature,  with  no  re- 
striction. The  sole  restriction  in  the  Constitution  now  is  that 
whatever  is  made  taxable  by  the  legislature  shall  be  taxed  in 
the  same  proportion  to  all  other  taxable  property.  That  is, 
if  you  have  a  horse  that  is  taxable,  and  cows  and  real  estate, 
they  shall  either  be  taxed  at  full  value,  or  fifty  percent,  or  any 
other  rate,  but  the  tax  shall  be  proportional  between  them. 
Now,  the  word  "reasonable"  is  used  in  here.  Nobody  knows 
what  that  means,  nobody  can  define  it,  and  as  to  what  the  Court 
might  say  concerning  any  laws  that  might  be  passed,  as  to  their 
reasonableness,  nobody  can  know. 

The  line  is  drawn  fair  and  square  here,  and  instead  of  voting 
on  the  resolutions  that  are  now  before  us,  offered  by  Mr.  Jones 
and  Mr.  Hollis,  the  Convention  should  vote  flat-footedly  whether 
to  have  the  Stevens  amendment,  or  whether  to  have  the  Boyn- 
ton  amendment,  or  whether  to  have  the  Mitchell  amendment, 
and  take  them  up  in  order.  If  the  Stevens  amendment  is  voted 
upon   and   adopted,   it   includes    all   the    other  amendments.     If 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  281 

we  wai^t  to  vote  on  the  other  propositions,  and  have  all  three 
presented  to  the  people,  v^^e  can  do  so,  but  I  feel  that  the 
Stevens  resolution  ought  not  to  go  through. 

Something  was  said  the  other  day  and  some  quotations  taken 
from  the  first  annual  report  of  the  Tax  Commission.  I  wrote 
that  portion  of  the  report,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  ashamed 
of  it.  I  want  to  speak  in  explanation  of  the  thought  that  was  in 
my  mind,  and  has  been  in  my  mind  for  years,  which  is  to  in 
some  way  or  other  change  the  existing  Constitution  as  to  tax- 
ation of  intangibles.  It  was  suggested  we  put  in  the  word  "uni- 
form" instead  of  "proportional."  It  would  have  accomplished 
that  purpose,  and  it  would  have  accomplished  a  good  deal  more. 
Then  I  was  thinking  along  the  line  of  intangibles.  Later  I 
began  to  think  what  else  might  be  done.  I  could  see  at  once 
the  legislature  could  classify  intangibles  and  could  also  classify 
tangible  property.  On  that  question  I  want  to  read  just  a  lit- 
tle from  a  report  of  the  Tax  Commission, — the  last  Commission 
they  had  in  Massachusetts.  They  are  constantly  having  Tax 
Commissions  in  that  state.  In  1907  or  1908  they  had  one,  and 
they  made  a  report  which  was  in  favor  of  the  three-mill  tax, 
as  it  is  called,  on  intangibles.  That  has  been  threshed  out  in 
Massachusetts  time  and  time  again;  they  could  not  get  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  to  permit  it  or  a  legislature  to  adopt  it. 
Their  Court  says  that  the  legislature,  under  the  present  Consti- 
tution, cannot  do  it.  In  1909  another  commission  was  ap- 
pointed to  consider  this  matter.  Now,  on  this  point  of  classi- 
fication came  up  the  question  of  striking  out  the  word  "pro- 
portional" from  the  Constitution.  It  seems  to  me  what  those 
gentlemen  say  is  worthy  of  great  consideration  here  because 
the  conditions  there  are  practically  the  same  as  they  are  here. 

This  is   their  language: 

"It  is  to  be  feared  that  experimentation  with  special  schemes 
of  classification,  which  passage  of  the  amendment  would  invite, 
might  produce  complication  and  confusion  of  the  tax  system 
of  the  state.  The  provisions  of  the  tax  laws  might  easily,  in 
the  course  of  time,  be  elaborated  into  the  extreme  complexity 
of  a  tariff  act,  with  innumerable  classes  and  rates.  The  situ- 
ation would  be  a  constant  menace  to  stability  of  values. 

"Undoubtedly,  furthermore,  pressure  would  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  legislature  to  grant  favored  rates  of  taxation 
to  different  interests.  Already  the  claims  of  forestry,  machin- 
ery, and  intangible  personalty  are  pressed  upon  the  attention 
of  the  legislature.  If  the  proposed  amendment,  permitting 
classification,  without  other  restriction  than  that  imposed  by 
the  vague   requirement  of    'reasonableness,'  were   adopted,  the 


282    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

representation  of  special  interests  would  come  forward  from 
many  quarters,  each  with  a  plea  for  legislative  favor  in  the 
matter  of  taxation.  The  constant  agitation  for  change  of  the 
tax  on  corporate  excess,  which  is  the  most  conspicuous  example 
of  classification  now  on  the  statute  books,  shows  that  the 
apprehension  here  expressed  is  not  purely  fanciful. 

"Finally,  the  door  would  be  opened  wide  to  socialistic  tax 
legislation,  designed  to  discriminate  against  wealth  per  se,  and 
to  force  artificial  redistribution  of  wealth  by  a  violent  exercise 
of  the  taxing  power.  If  the  word  'proportional'  were  taken  out 
of  the  Constitution  there  would  be  no  effective  check  upon  dis- 
criminative taxation  adequate  to  prevent  gradation  of  rates  to 
points  absolutely  confiscatory.  The  protection  given  by  the 
word  'reasonable'  in  the  state  Constitution,  and  by  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution,  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  affording  to  the  property-holder  security  against 
punitive  and  retributive  taxation. 

"The  argument  has  been  advanced  in  this  connection  that 
constitutional  restraint  upon  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power 
by  the  legislature  is  unnecessary.  It  is  held  that  the  people 
can  afford  to  'trust'  the  legislature  with  practically  unlimited 
power  to  levy  upon  property  at  various  rates  and  by  different 
methods,  according  to  any  peculiar  system  that  may,  for  the 
time,  appeal  to  the  legislative  mind.  This  contention  that  con- 
stitutional restrictions  are  superfluous  in  reference  to  taxation, 
if  consistently  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  would  call  for 
the  entire  abolition  of  written  Constitutions.  The  taxing  power 
is  the  most  important  one  entrusted  to  legislative  bodies.  If 
constitutional  restriction  can  be  dispensed  with  here,  it  can  be 
done  away  with  altogether  without  menace  to  the  general  wel- 
fare. This  argument  in  favor  of  legislative  license  in  the 
matter  of  taxation  flies  in  the  face  of  the  fimdamental  prin- 
ciples of  American  government.  The  founders  of  this  common- 
wealth gave  no  clearer  proof  of  their  political  sagacity  and 
foresight  than  that  afforded  bj^  the  insertion  into  the  organic 
law  of  a  provision  that  taxes  shall  be  'reasonable  and  pro- 
portional.' This  clause  stands  as  a  barrier  against  assaults  upon 
property  prompted  by  the  caprice  of  malice  born  of  the  'infatu- 
ation of  the  moment.'  The  retention  of  the  protective  re- 
striction is  peculiarly  imperative  at  the  present  time,  when 
fiscal  schemes  of  a  socialistic  character  are  pushing  their  claims 
in  the  legislatures  of  many  countries. 

"It  is  pertinent  in  this  connection  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  only  a  minority  of  the  American  states  have  constitutional 
provisions  that  permit  the  classification  of  property  for  purposes 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  283 

of  taxation.  Only  ten  states  never  have  had  any  restrictions 
upon  classification  in  the  Constitution;  four  other  states  have 
repealed  such  restrictions  originally  put  into  the  Constitution. 
It  thus  appears  that  thirty-tvsro  states  have  so  far  retained  in 
their  Constitutions  provisions  that  limit  the  powder  of  the  leg- 
islature with  respect  to  the  classification  of  property.  The 
general  practice  of  American  states  is  strongly  on  the  side  of 
the  retention  of  the  M^ord  'proportional'  in  the  Constitution  of 
this  commonwealth." 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  be 
given  Tinanimous  consent  to  discuss  the  question  further  for 
ten  minutes. 

Objection  being  raised, — 

Consent  was  not  granted. 

Mr.  BrodcricTc  of  Mancliester. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee.  I  find  myself  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the 
object  designed  to  be  accomplished  by  Eesolution  No.  33,  and 
I  feel  sure  that  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  might  even  more 
forcibly,  and  to  a  greater  extent  than  he  did,  have  exemplified 
the  fact  that  our  present  system  of  taxation  works  unequally 
and  unjustly  in  its  recent  administration.  But,  Gentlemen,  I 
doubt  very  seriously  the  wisdom  of  attempting  to  cure  defects 
in  administration  by  radical  constitutional  changes.  I  havo 
been  reared,  as  you  have  been,  to  a  most  profound  respect  and 
veneration  for  the  work  of  the  fathers  of  our  Constitution,  and 
I  would  very  reluctantly  make  any  radical  change  in  the  sj^stem 
that  they  have  handed  down  to  us,  and  I  would  not  do  it  at 
all  until  the  necessity  for  it  is  brought  home  to  us  with  over- 
whelming force.  I  have  been  reared,  too,  to  the  conviction  that 
any  classification  of  things  which  will  permit  an  unequal  impo- 
sition of  burdens,  or  a  granting  of  unequal  privileges,  is  de- 
structive of  a  republican  form  of  government,  and,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  pointed  out,  we  have 
no  assurance  that  in  the  near  or  distant  future  another  little 
coterie  of  men  will  not  be  in  control  of  our  statute-making,  the 
same  as  one  was  ten  years  ago;  and  that,  with  all  constitutional 
restraints  as  to  taxation  removed,  they  will  not  impose  the 
whole  burden  of  taxation  on  the  people  that  can  least  afford 
to  bear  it.  But  the  great  danger  I  see  in  this  proposition  lies 
in  the  opposite  direction.  There  is  growing  in  this  land  of 
ours,  and  throusfh  the  world,  a  movement  which  tends  to  remove 


28-4     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  marriage  tie  and  destroy  the  famih-;  a  movement  that 
holds  Christianity  in  ridicule,  would  destroy  the  sanctity  of 
the  marriage  tie  and  destroy  the  family;  a  movement  that 
repudiates  the  sacredness  of  property  rights;  a  movement 
that  would  prevent  you  from  using  your  greater  efficiency  for 
the  benefit  of  your  wife,  your  children  and  yourself.  We  can- 
not be  assured  that  next  year,  or  in  the  years  to  come,  social- 
ism, with  all  its  rank  political  heresies,  may  not  be  in  control 
of  our  statute-making  power,  and,  with  all  constitutional  re- 
strictions on  taxation  removed,  what  may  we  not  foresee  as 
to  what  socialism  may  do  in  the  matter  of  taxation  in  the 
state?  Gentlemen,  I  prefer  that,  whether  socialism  or  the 
friends  of  special  interests  gain  control  of  our  state,  they  shall 
be  restrained  in  the  matter  of  taxation  by  the  rigid,  uncom- 
promising "proportional"  of  the  fathers  than  that  we  should 
find  ourselves  at  the  mercy  of  the  treacherous  elasticity  of  the 
"reasonable"  of  this  resolution. 

But,  Gentlemen,  carrj-ing  out  mj'  theory  to  its  logical  con- 
clusion, I  am  still  opposed  to  any  classification  of  timberlands. 
The  Tax  Commission  of  1907  has  pointed  out  a  way  whereby 
those  growing  timberlands  can  be  taxed,  and  the  necessity  for 
some  legislation  to  that  end  is  made  apparent  by  the  discussion 
on  this  floor.  The  Tax  Commission  of  1907  has  pointed  out  a 
way  whereby  they  may  be  protected,  as  far  as  taxation  is 
concerned,  under  our  present  Constitution.  They  confess  that 
there  is  a  shadow  of  doubt  that  the  system  they  propose  is 
constitutional.  But  why  need  we  go  into  a  dangerous  field  of 
classification  for  the  purpose  of  removing  a  doubt  in  our  con- 
stitutional law?  We  are  sitting  here  for  the  purpose  of  amend- 
ing the  Constitution.  If  the  Tax  Commission  has  pointed  out  a 
way  whereby,  with  a  little  modification  of  our  Constitution^ 
the  growing  timber  may  be  protected,  why  can  we  not  accom- 
plish that,  instead  of  by  this  classification? 

And  as  to  the  matter  of  intangibles:  It  is  surely  a  fact,  as 
pointed  out  by  the  gentleman  from  Laconia  last  Thursday,  that 
a  tax  of  621/2  percent  on  the  incomes  of  property  is  destructive. 
Why  may  that  not  be  in  the  same  way  accomplished  by  a  modi- 
fication of  our  Constitution,  so  that  the  income  tax  on  intangi- 
bles may  be  provided  for?  With  these  considerations,  Gentle- 
men, and  the  scrupulous  regard  for  my  dutj^  as  a  member  of 
this  Convention,  as  I  see  it,  much  as  I  regret  it,  I  feel  obliged 
to  say  that  I  am  unable  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  gentleman 
from  Landaff  in  Resolution  No.  33. 

Mr.  DraTce  of  Pitlsfield. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  last  Thursday  we  listened  to  the  discussion  in  regard 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  285 

to  the  taxation  of  money  at  interest,  etc.  We  heard  about  the 
proportional,  the  reasonable  and  unreasonable  rates  of  taxation 
of  intangibles  and  tangibles,  of  stocks,  bonds,  railroads  and 
express  companies,  together  with  an  income  tax  which  may  be 
graduated  and  progressive,  with  reasonable  exemption;  also 
about  widows  and  orphans,  until  many  of  us  were  bewildered 
and  almost  lost  in  the  "growing  wood  and  timber."  But  we 
have  had  three  or  four  days  in  which  to  extricate  ourselves 
from  this  labyrinth,  and  I  trust  that  this  morning  our  minds 
are  again  clear  and  our  heads  level,  for  I  intend  to  give  you  a 
few  minutes  of  very  plain  talk  in  regard  to  this  subject. 

Of  all  the  talk  we  had  last  Thursday,  the  startling  statement 
in  regard  to  the  taxation  of  money  at  interest  made  by  the  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Concord  made  the  deepest  impression  on 
my  mind,  and  I  have  been  thinking  the  same  over  a  great  deal. 
His  statement  was  this:  "As  regards  taxation  of  money  at  in- 
terest, I  am  satisfied  that  where  onlj^  $5,000,000  actually  pays 
tax  there  are  rising  $100,000,000  taxable  within  the  state  under 
the  law." 

Another  gentleman  from  Concord  mentioned  a  state  where 
the  laws  in  regard  to  the  taxation  of  money  at  interest  were 
as  severe  as  could  be  made,  unless  resort  was  had  to  physical 
torture,  and  the  conditions  there  were  as  bad  as  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  they  were  practically  becoming  a  commonwealth  of 
perjurers.  Now,  Gentlemen,  exemption  or  evasion  of  a  tax 
"does  not  lessen  the  amount  of  tax  to  be  raised  and  paid  by 
somebody,  and  when  a  man  evades  paying  his  just  proportion 
of  the  taxes,  and,  in  addition,  the  proportion  of  taxes  that  are 
and  from  you  and  me,  who  have  to  pay  our  own  proportion 
of  the  taxes  and,  in  addition,  the  proportion  of  taxes  that  are 
justly  his  to  pay.  The  dictionary  tells  us  that  he  who  steals 
is  a  thief,  and  the  most  lamentable  truth  about  this  case  is  that 
the  thief  is  not  a  poor,  illiterate,  half-starved  tramp;  if  he  was, 
and  stole  money,  he  would  be  put  in  state  prison,  but  in  this 
tax  evasion  case  the  thief  is  a  well-educated  and  so-called  re- 
spectable citizen.  What  punishment  is  proposed  for  him,  him 
and  his  kind,  who  have  for  years  been  cheating  the  public 
treasury  and  stealing  from  you  and  me?  Is  he  to  have  a  long 
sentence  in  state  prison?  Oh,  no,  not  by  any  means;  instead 
of  that,  they  come  here  and  ask  us  to  vote  for  a  constitutional 
amendment,  which  will  allow  the  rate  of  taxation  on  his  par- 
ticular class  of  property  to  be  made  so  small  that  it  will  not 
be  worth  while  for  him  to  take  the  trouble  to  steal  it.  You 
ask  how  much  these  people  have  been  stealing?  Well,  of 
course,  we  cannot  tell  exactly,  but  the  gentleman  who  quoted 


286      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  figures  to  us  is  a  very  conservative  man,  and  at  his  figures 
the  tax  would  amount  to  $2,000,000  a  year, — quite  a  tidy  sum. 
The  automobile  trunk  lines  could  all  have  been  finished  and 
paid  for  ere  this  time  if  these  tax  evaders  had  only  paid  the 
same  rate  percent  on  their  property  which  the  honest  man 
has  on  his.  The  level-headed  gentleman  from  Peterborough 
mentioned  the  fact  that  when  a  man  dies,  all  of  his  estate, 
whether  real  estate,  stocks,  bonds  or  anything  else  of  value, 
is  all  appraised  as  property  and  is  assessed  as  such  by  the  state 
for  inheritance  tax  purposes.  There  is  no  justice  in  exempting 
from  taxation  the  stock  in  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  and  tax- 
ing the  bonds,  as  the  law  is  now  and  has  been  mentioned 
here.  All  stocks  in  corporations  outside  of  this  state,  as  well 
as  the  bonds,  should  be  taxable  here.  Otherwise  it  would  be 
possible  to  evade  taxation  entirely  by  investing  in  the  stocks 
that  are  exempted  from  taxation.  This  would  throw  the  entire 
burden  of  taxation  on  to  real  estate.  Wealthy  men  give  as  an 
excuse  for  evading  taxation  the  excessively  high  rate  of  tax  in 
this  state,  a  condition  which  they  create  themselves  by  not  dis- 
closing all  their  property  for  taxation,  as  an  honest  man  should 
do.  I  venture  the  assertion  that  if  all  property  in  this  state 
was  assessed  for  taxation  at  its  true  value,  the  rate  of  taxation 
would  not  be  over  three  fourths  of  one  percent,  which  is  the 
rate  at  the  present  time  on  savings  bank  deposits,  and  this 
rate  would  not  be  a  heavy  burden  for  anyone. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  isn't  it  a  sad  state  of  affairs  when  an  honest 
judge  of  our  Superior  Court  comes  here  and  tells  us  these 
unwelcome  truths  about  our  wealthy  citizens?  And,  to  me,  the 
most  deplorable  part  of  it  is  that  the  best  remedy  he  can  sug- 
gest is  that  we  make  the  amount  of  plunder  so  small  that 
they  will  not  bother  to  steal  it. 

I  assure  you.  Gentlemen,  that  it  is  of  no  use  to  submit  to  the 
people  an  amendment  as  proposed  in  Resolution  No.  5,  lor  the 
people  will  reason  that  a  man  who  will  steal  a  tax  rate  of  $2.00 
will  steal  a  tax  rate  of  forty  cents.  It  is  a  very  difficult  matter 
to  frame  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  at  this  time  which 
will  accomplish  the  desired  result.  Therefore  I  am  in  favor  of 
the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Hollis,  which  puts  the  whole 
subject  of  taxation  into  the  hands  of  the  General  Court,  where 
it  can  be  taken  up  and  acted  on  as  occasion  may  demand.  If 
the  Stevens  amendment  is  adopted  I  shall  move  that  the  fol- 
lowing be  added  to  it: 

Provided,  That  no  act  passed  by  the  General  Court  under  au- 
thority of  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  tax* 
ation  shall  take  effect  before  the  same  shall  be  laid  before  the 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  287 

towns  and  unincorporated  places  and  approved  by  a  majority 
of  the  qualified  voters  present  and  voting  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Davis  of  New  Ipswich.— Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  we  have  listened  very  patiently  and  attentively  to 
the  extent  of  about  $1,500  worth  of  time  to  the  tax  troubles 
and  tribulations  of  stocks,  bonds  and  money  at  interest.  In 
the  meantime,  what  has  become  of  the  cow?  Has  the  honest 
farmer,  like  the  honest  banker,  hiked  her  over  the  line  to 
evade  taxation?  Or  is  she  still  with  us?  Assuming  she  is  still 
here.  Gentlemen,  she,  like  the  laboring  man's  little  home,  is 
doomed  by  Eesolution  No.  5  to  be  taxed  eternally  one  hundred 
cents  on  the  dollar..  Now  let's  see  if  she  really  ought  to  stand 
it.  We  will  take  the  calf  when  she  is  six  or  eight  weeks  old; 
she  is  then  worth  ten  or  fifteen  dollars,  according  to  her  size. 
You  keep  her  until  she  is  a  year  old  at  an  expense  of  $25,  and, 
if  you  can  get  $15  for  her,  you  are  fortunate.  Keep  her  another 
six  months,  and  they  begin  to  tax  her,  and  she  has  cost  you 
from  $50  to  $60.  If  you  market  her  then  you  will  get  from  $30 
to  $40,  according  to  her  appearance.  Now  keep  her  another 
year,  at  the  expense  cf  $Ci5,  and  she  begins  to  be  productive. 
If  she  is  a  very  good  one,  for  the  next  year  she  will  barely 
pay  her  way,  and  she  will  be  worth,  according  to  her  appear- 
ance, $40  or  $50.  We  have  got  her  through  the  second  year, 
and  we  know  then  whether  she  is  going  td  be  a  profitable  cow 
or  not.  If  she  is,  she  will  make  you,  perhaps,  $35.  In  the  mean- 
time you  have  paid  one  hundred  cents  on  the  dollar  for  taxes 
on  that  cow  since  she  was  eighteen  months  old.  Now  comes 
the  third  year.  This  is  the  real  test.  If  she  doesn't  prove 
valuable  this  time  you  send  her  to  the  butcher  for  $30  or  $35. 
If  in  this  year  she  gives  you  6,000  quarts  of  milk,  and  makes 
you  300  pounds  of  butter,  you  say  then  she  is  profitable.  If 
she  has  not,  she  is  not  profitable,  and  you  sell  her  for  $30  or 
$35  to  the  butcher.  Now,  Gentlemen,  there  are  hundreds  of 
farmers  in  this  state  who  will  tell  you  that  two  in  every  three 
prove  to  be  worthless,  of  use  only  to  the  butcher.  That  is  the 
truth,  and  you  will  back  me  up  in  it  if  you  have  kept  books,  as 
I  have.  There  are  hundreds  of  cows  in  this  state  that  farmers 
are  keeping  at  a  dead  loss,  costing  them  $35  or  $40  a  year  and 
their  labor.  Gentlemen,  is  it  any  wonder,  when  we  consider  the 
burden  of  the  tax  the  old  cow  has  borne,  that  she  makes  tough 
beefsteak? 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord.— Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the 
Committee,  I  desire  to  direct  your  attention,  briefly,  to  what  I 
regard  as  the  logical  significance  of  Resolution  No.  33.  By  this 
resolution  it  is  proposed  that  from  Article  5  of  Part  Second  of 


288    Journal  of  Constitutioxal  Convention. 

the  Constitution  shall  be  stricken,  first,  the  word  "propor- 
tional," and  second,  the  words,  "upon  all  the  inhabitants  of,  and 
rosid'-nts  within,  said  state  and  upon  all  the  estates  within  the 
same."  These  are  the  words  which  it  is  proposed  shall  be 
stricken,  or  removed,  from  Article  5,  Part  Second;  and  it  is 
proposed  to  strike  out,  not  a  few  isolated  words  from  Article 
6  of  Part  Second,  but  to  remove  from  the  Constitution  the 
whole  of  that  article  and  substitute  therefor  terms,  or  words, 
that  are  very  general. 

Article  6,  as  it  now  stands,  unamended,  in  the  Constitution, 
reads  thus:  "The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon"  polls,  estates,  and 
other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
passing  by  will  or  inheritance;  and  there  shall  be  a  valuation 
of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in  every  five 
years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  General  Court  shall 
order." 

These  provisions  contemplate  and  secure  equality  of  public 
burdens.  The  proposed  amendment  removes  from  the  Consti- 
tution the  word,  "proportional,"  which  is  the  safeguard  and 
mandate  of  the  Constitution  through  and  by  which  equalitj''  is 
now  secured.  This  safeguard,  protection,  and  mandate,  whereby 
the  humblest  citizen,  whose  rights  are  affected  by  excessive 
taxation,  can  appeal  to  the  Court  for  protection  and  security  of 
his  rights,  and  the  definite,  intelligent  and  judicial  ascertain- 
ment of  the  constitutional  burden  which  should  be  imposed 
upon  him. 

Gentlemen,  do  you  want  the  word  "proportional"  stricken 
from  the  Constitution,  a  word  which  has  received  a  judicial 
construction  by  our  Court  during  a  period  of  more  than  eighty 
years,  beginning  with  the  decision  of  the  Court  in  the  year  1827, 
and,  as  interpreted  by  the  Court,  provides  a  protection  and  the 
security  of  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  against  excessive,  un- 
reasonable  and  burdensome   taxation. 

To  now  remove  this  word  from  the  Constitution,  a  word  that 
has  become  an  integral,  living  and  efficient  force  in  our  juris- 
prudence, for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  would 
be  hazardous,  radical  and  perilous.  Before  indulging  in  any 
such  sweeping,  radical  change,  and  thus  leaving  the  people 
without  a  constitutional  standard,  or  guide,  to  protect  or  defin- 
itely determine  the  rights  of  the  taxpayer,  let  us  pause  and 
seriously  consider. 

It  is  proposed,  too,  by  this  resolution  to  entirely  remove  all 
requirement  for  the  enumeration  of  polls  and  estates,  leaving 
it  absolutely  to  the  whim  and   caprice,   or,   if  you  please,  to 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  289 

the  discretion  of  the  legislature,  to  determine  what  the  subjects 
of  taxation   shall  be. 

"Keasonable"  they  say  is  our  protection.  This  is  not  a  ju- 
dicial question,  as  is  "proportional."  ''Reasonable"  is  a  legis- 
lative and  not  a  judicial  question,  while  "proportional"  is  a 
judicial  and  not  a  legislative  question. 

The  reasonableness  of  a  question  may  be  disposed  of  in  party 
convention,  legislative  committee,  or  legislative  assembly  with- 
out restriction,  or  without  limit,  except  the  sense  of  justice  of 
those  who  constitute  those  several  bodies.  In  the  Constitution, 
its  founders  wisely  provided  not  only  that  taxes  should  be  pro- 
portional, which  means  equal,  reasonable  taxation,  but  they 
prescribed,  also,  the   subjects  of  taxation. 

It  is  proposed  by  this  amendment  to  have  Article  6,  instead 
of  reading  as  it  now  does,  and  as  quoted  by  me,  to  have  it  read 
as  follows:  "The  public  charges  of  government,  or  any  part 
thereof,  may  be  raised  by  taxation.  The  subjects  of  taxation 
may  be  divided  according  to  their  kind  or  value  into  classes 
differently  taxed."  Under  this,  or  a  similar  provision,  the 
powerful  or  influential  might  secure  the  classification  of  their 
own  property  and  load  upon  the  weak  or  uninfluential  an  un- 
equal and  unproportional  part  of  the  public  burden.  The  great 
and  striking  merits  of  our  Constitution,  and  its  limitations,  are 
that  they  protect  the  weak  against  the  encroachments  or  self- 
ishness of  the  strong. 

Our  Constitution  has  been  characterized  and  commended  by 
the  greatest  foreign  statesman  of  modern  times  as  being  the 
greatest  work  struck  off,  at  a  given  time,  by  the  brain  and  hand 
of  man;  and  chief  among  its  great  merits  is  enumerated  that 
provision  of  its  founders  whereby,  through  their  wisdom  and 
sagacity,  it  was  provided  that  the  people  themselves  should  be 
restrained  from  their  own  temporary,  ill-considered,  impulsive 
action.  This  element  of  restraint,  it  is  claimed,  is  one  of  the 
greatest  merits  of  our  written  Constitution.  New  Hampshire's 
Constitution  has  stood  the  test,  provided  the  people  pro- 
tection, secured  material  prosperity,  and  advanced  the  cause  of 
civilization  for  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  years. 
New  Hampshire  was  the  first  commonwealth,  the  first  organ- 
ized body,  or  society,  to  adopt  a  written  Constitution. 

Her  first  temporary  Constitution  was  adopted  January  5, 
1776;  and  from  that  time  until  the  completion  of  the  existing 
Constitution,  which  went  into  effect  June  1,  1784,  the  wisdom, 
sagacity  and  study  of  the  great  men  of  that  period  was  em- 
ployed in  forming,  developing  and  perfecting  this  instrument, 
which  has  been,   and  now  is,  the  admiration  of  those  who  re- 


290    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

spect  and  admire  our  free  institutions.  It  is  a  model  in  its 
simplicity,  clearness  and  comprehensiveness.  Under  it  life, 
liberty  and  property  are  secure.  It  has  served  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  designed  efficiently,  admirably  and  satisfactorily. 
Are  we  now  weary  of  it?  Are  we  at  this  time  to  dispense  with 
its  safeguards?  Gentlemen,  I  think  I  bespeak  your  sense  of 
justice,  your  desire  for  safety  and  security  of  rights,  when  I 
say  that  you  will  stand  anchored  by  those  provisions  in  our 
Constitution  that  for  this  long  period  of  time  so  well,  and  so 
efficiently,  secured  to  us  the  protection  of  life  and  liberty,  and 
the  security  of  property. 

The  Chairman. — Mr.  Mitchell  has  used  up  his  ten  minutes, 
under  the  rule. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  fully  agree  with  the  member  from  Concord,  who 
said  the  Constitution  should  be  a  protection  to  the  weak  against 
the  strong.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  or  any  other 
gentleman,  to  point  to  one  decision  of  our  Courts  interpreting 
the  word  "proportional"  that  has  been  for  the  benefit  of  the 
weak  as  against  the  strong.  It  has  been  taken  to  the  Court 
time  and  time  again  by  corporations  who  object  to  having  their 
property  assessed  by  any  other  method  than  the  method  pro- 
vided for  assessing  the  horse  of  the  farmer,  or  his  cow.  That 
word,  "proportional,"  has  been  so  Interpreted  that  the  private 
individual  who  invests  a  thousand  or  a  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars in  stocks  is  exempt  from  taxation  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  double  taxation,  and  the  ordinary  man,  the  little  man,  the 
weak  man,  who  saves  out  a  few  dollars  from  his  earnings,  and 
hasn't  the  business  capacity  to  make  as  good  investments,  and 
puts  his  money  into  the  savings  bank,  and  the  savings  banks 
invest  in  those  same  stocks  as  a  private  individual  does,  that 
private  depositor  pays  three  fourths  of  one  percent  on  it  to 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  today.  Furthermore,  the  Court 
held  that  you  cannot  tax  stock  because  it  is  double  taxation, 
and  then  they  turned  right  around  and  said  a  tax  on  a  mortgage 
note  is  constitutional  just  the  same.  These  safeguards,  these 
protections,  these  restrictions  in  the  Constitution  as  a  practical 
question,  have  worked  every  single  time — and  I  base  that  upon 
the  reports  of  the  Court  in  this  state  and  our  actual  conditions 
today, — for  the  benefit  of  corporations  and  men  of  means,  and 
taxation  in  this  state  today  falls  unequally,  unproportionally, 
unreasonably  upon  the  man  of  moderate  means, — the  farmer 
and  the  small  man.  And  why  is  it?  It  is  because  of  this  very- 
word  "proportional,"  this  very  rule  which  requires  you  to  as- 
sess all  property  by  the  same  method. 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  291 

I  heard  in  this  same  hall  four  years  ago  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  make  an  eloquent  speech  before  the  legislative  com- 
mittee, a  copy  of  which  I  tried  to  get  this  morning.  He  argued 
and  proved,  by  the  decision  of  the  Courts,  that  in  this  stale 
it  is  unproportional  and  unconstitutional  to  yary  the  method 
of  assessment;  that  the  railroad  must  be  assessed  by  exactly 
the  same  method  that  everybody  else's  property  is,  never 
mind  what  the  practical  result  is.  Xow.  I  am  surprised  that 
one  objection  to  this  is  that  the  corporations  may  get  in  and 
dominate  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  that  they  will  come 
in  and  get  their  property  all  classified.  Who  benefits  by  our 
present  methods?     The  corporations. 

Gentlemen  who  bought  the  morning  papers  may  have  seen 
the  advertisement  on  the  front  page  of  the  Manchester  Union, 
an  attack  upon  the  initiative  and  referendum,  and  especially  an 
attack  upon  the  so-called  Stevens  amendment.  We  are  told 
that  we  are  not  going  to  have  any  hotel  built  on  the  top  of 
Mount  Washington  until  these  capitalists  find  out  what  the  ac- 
tion of  the  state  is  going  to  be  on  that  matter,  and  the  ad- 
vertisement is  signed  by  C.  L.  Mason,  Concord.  Mr.  Mason  is 
an  employee  of  the  railroad,  and  has  been  for  a  good  many 
years,  and  I  think  the  gentlemen  who  wrote  that  attack  and 
that  argument,  and  bought  space  in  the  Manchester  Union,  might 
at  least  have  had  the  courage  to  sign  their  own  names  to  it. 
The  opposition  to  this  measure  is  shown  hj  that  advertisement, 
and  shown  by  other  things  which  some  of  us  can  see  on  the 
floor  of  this  Convention.  Th'='  opposition  comes  from  the  corpora- 
tions, the  corporations'  interests,  and  the  rich  men,  the  wealthy 
men,  who  are  today  escaping  their  fair  share  of  taxation,  and 
I  am  glad  that  it  is  made  clear  here  where  the  opposition  comes 
from.  We  want  this  amendment  so  we  can  get  taxes  more 
equally  assessed  and  remove  the  burden  that  now  rests  on  the 
men  of  limited  means  and  on  the  poor  man  and  put  it  where 
it  belongs, — on  the  wealthy  and  those  who  are  able  to  pay.  It 
is  argued  that  this  amendment  is  revolutionary  and  radical. 
Now,  the  state  of  Maine  has  exactly  the  same  words  that  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  has  in  its  Constitution.  If  anything, 
it  is  a  little  tighter,  and  yet  in  the  state  of  Maine  they  can 
do  what  they  want  to  do,  and  what  the  amendment,  my  amend- 
ment, will  allow  the  legislature  here  to  do.  They  can  classify 
property,  they  can  tax  the  railroads  on  the  gross  income  basis. 
The  state  of  Vermont  has  no  restrictions  on  the  taxing  power 
of  the  legislature;  the  state  of  Connecticut  has  no  restrictions 
on  the  taxing  power.  There  are  a  good  many  states,  I  think 
thirteen  in  all,  which  have  no  restrictions  on  the  taxing  power 


292    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  their  legislatures,  so  this  matter  is  not  revolutionarj-.     It  is 
recommended  by  the  highest  tax  authorities  we  have. 

Now  I  have  looked  through  four  different  reports  of  the  Na- 
tional Tax  Association,  and  in  every  single  report  it  has  unani- 
mously recommended  the  removal  from  State  Constitutions  of 
these  old-fashioned  restrictions.  Give  your  legislature  the 
power  to  deal  with  things  exactly  as  they  are. 

Mr.  HiiMey  of  Goffstown. — The  people  of  New  Hampshire  have 
been  very  lenient  in  the  way  of  exemption  in  the  last  forty 
years.  The  question  arises  as  to  the  exemption  of  wood  and 
timber.  Will  that  save  it?  If  it  would,  I  should  be  glad  that 
such  a  state  of  things  should  come  about.  It  will  not;  it  has 
been  but  partially  taxed  in  the  past.  Some  estates  have  not 
been  taxed  for  more  than  fifty  percent  of  their  valuation,  and 
when  they  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  heirs,  or  those  who  in- 
herit them,  they  are  then  stripped.  It  is  the  demand  for  wood 
and  timber  that  has  caused  the  depletion  of  the  forest.  Now, 
today  there  is  not  an  old-growth  pine  tree  in  a  radius  of  twenty- 
five  miles  from  Concord.  What  is  it  that  has  caused  the  de- 
pletion? As  I  said  before,  it  is  the  demand,  and  I  know  of  no 
way  that  this  wood  and  timber,  or  growing  wood  and  timber, 
can  be  preserved  unless  some  one  owns  it  outside  of  those  to 
whom  it  is  taxed.  What  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  want 
today,  and  what  they  demand,  is  something  that  is  fair,  just 
and  equitable;  fair  for  the  man  who  owns  a  little  farm  with 
no  wood  and  timber  on  it,  which  today  is  taxed  at  its  full  value; 
fair  to  the  man  who  has  a  little  home  on  the  street  in  the  vil- 
lage, which  the  assessor  can  see,  and  which  today  is  taxed  at  its 
full  value;  fair,  likewise,  for  the  man  who  has  $2,000  worth  of 
wood  and  timber  upon  his  farm.  We  must  realize  today,  further- 
more, that  this  question  cannot  be  treated  without  objection. 
We  must  realize  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  a  debt  on 
it  of  $2,000,000,  and  the  counties  have  large  debts,  and  the  towns 
and  cities  a  debt  of  $12,000,000.  And  one  thing  further,  if  there 
was  no  exemption,  if  the  property  was  taxed  at  its  full  value 
and  all  things  were  brought  up  to  an  equality,  the  tax  rate 
would  be  less,  it  would  not  be  over  one  and  one  fourth  cents. 
Our  ancestors  adopted  the  plan  of  classification;  it  was  a  wise 
one  in  their  day.  After  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  was  in- 
corporated they  classed  property  in  six  divisions,  and  the  inven- 
tories of  a  hundred  or  a  hundred  and  fifteen  years  ago  had  the 
following  classifications:  Orchards,  tillage,  pasturage,  mowing, 
improved  land  and  buildings.  Now  the  error  they  fell  into  was 
this:  They  found  after  some  years  that  the  constituent  parts 
more  than  equalled  the  whole  value,  and  from  time  to  time  it 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  29^ 

dropped  out,  and  buildings  and  land  were  classified  differently. 
As  I  said  before,  the  question  that  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire want  is  a  fair,  just  and  equal  taxation.  I  wish  there  could 
be  some  way  that  the  matter  could  be  arrived  at.  I  am  not 
in  favor  of  exemptions.  The  people  of  New  Hampshire  have 
had  a  long  experience  in  this.  They  have  exempted  everything 
from  a  poll  tax  to  a  large  manufacturing  concern,  and  I  think 
they  are  satisfied  that  the  exemption  of  property  is  not  what 
the  common  people  wish. 

Mi\  Clement  of  Warren. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  away  back  in  the  '90s  I  was  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  for  two  successive  sessions.  At  that  time 
there  were  some  inequalities  in  regard  to  railroad  taxation. 
Being  unable  to  thoroughly  understand  the  question,  I  went  to 
the  only  authority  I  knew  who  would  be  likely  to  give  me  a 
clean-cut  explanation,  namely,  to  John  M.  Hill,  chairman  of  the 
State  Board  of  Equalization;  and  I  must  say  I  never  got  a  more 
frank  and  satisfactory  and  direct  talk  upon  any  subject  than  I 
had  with  him.  He  spoke  understandingly  of  the  trouble  that 
the  State  Board  of  Equalization  had  in  making  up  their  assess- 
ment. He  said:  "Now  I  am  going  to  give  you  one  illustration. 
You  must  know  that  the  city  of  Manchester  was  beaten  but 
a  short  time  ago  in  a  tax  suit  by  the  Amoskeag  corporation. 
I  know  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Assessors  personally, — 
as  just  and  upright  men  as  I  ever  knew,  men  of  good  judgment 
and  good,  hard  common-sense  men, — but  the  city  of  Manchester 
was  beaten.  They  lost  the  tax  which  they  ought  to  have  had. 
There  is  another  suit  now  pending  of  the  Amoskeag  corpora- 
tion against  the  city  of  Manchester,  and  I  fear  that  they  will 
'be  beaten  again.  That  you  may  see  that  I  am  not  prejudiced, 
that  I  am  honest  in  my  statements,  I  will  say  to  you  that  my 
property  is  invested  in  the  stocks  and  securities,  largely,  of  the 
Amoskeag  corporation,  and  I  am  benefited  by  this  decision; 
but  it  is  wrong,  it  is  absolutely  wrong." 

Now,  Gentlemen,  that  came  from  the  chairman  of  your  Boarl 
of  Equalization,  a  man  who  at  that  time  was  about  to  resign 
from  his  position,  having  worked  about  his  allotted  time  in 
life.  Now  I  contend  if  that  was  his  judgment,  there  is  some- 
thing fundamentally  wrong  in  New  Hampshire  about  your  sys- 
tem of  taxation. 

Now,  in  closing,  none  of  the  world's  great  problems,  whether 
it  be  in  business,  in  finance,  in  naval  battles,  or  with  the  gen- 
eral upon  the  field,  none  have  ever  been  settled  with  fear,  cow- 
ardice and  so-called  conservatism  as  the  dominant  motives. 
Never.  You  have  got  to  seize  this  problem  and  treat  it  with 
courage  and  decision. 


294:    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Burton  of  Ncirport. — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  this 
discussion  seems  to  have  degenerated  into  an  assault  upon  the 
Courts  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  I  am  not  surprised, 
as  I  have  noted  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  upon  the  sub- 
ject. This  is  just  the  beginning  of  the  assaults  that  will  come 
upon  our  Courts  and  our  institutions  from  the  same  source,  in 
my  opinion,  and  I  desire  you  to  take  notice  right  here  and  now 
that  the  beginning  has  been  made.  It  looks  as  though  we  were 
about  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  It  looks  strikingly  as  though 
we  w^ere  about  to  decide  whether  or  not  we  would  retain  longer 
our  Constitution  or  discard  it  altogether,  reljdng  temporarily  on 
the  legislature  possibly,  but  later  on  the  popular  vote  up  and 
down  the  state, — on  the  initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the 
recall.  We  are  flat  up  against  that  proposition  this  morning. 
The  gentleman  from  Landaff  waxes  eloquent  over  the  injustice 
of  the  taxation  of  corporations.  You  may  know  that  he,  to- 
gether with  Mr.  Hollis  of  Concord,  is  the  attorney  of  the 
great  commission,  the  Public  Service  Commission,  that  their 
attention  is  confined  largely  to  the  actions  of  the  public  service 
corporations  of  the  state,  and  it  is  possible  that  their  judg- 
ment is  warped  a  little  by  their  calling,  their  work  in  life. 

Here  is  something  for  you  and  me  to  consider.  There  are  a 
lot  of  people  in  the  state  who  are  not  directly  interested  in 
the  big  corporations,  and  who  cannot  afford  to  sacrifice  a  great 
constitutional  guaranty  for  the  sake  of  making  it  a  little  easier 
for  the  Tax  Commission  to  assess  taxes.  Mr.  Stevens  has  told 
you  how  they  might  sit  dow^n  with  the  railroads  and  find  out 
their  earnings  in  a  short  time,  and  then  figure  out  what  their 
taxes  should  be.  This  would  also  be  convenient  in  the  case  of 
the  express  company,  and  the  sleeping  car  company,  but  you 
and  I,  in  giving  them  this  ease,  are  sacrificing  the  most  funda- 
mental language  in  the  Constitution.  Is  it  worth  while?  Are 
we  not  paying  too  dearly  for  enabling  these  officials  to  assess 
taxes  with  ease?  Is  there  any  reason  why  the  property  of 
the  railroad  cannot  be  assessed  just  as  is  your  property  and 
mine?  And  if  it  is  so  assessed  isn't  that  fair?  Now  I  want  to 
pay  my  uruportUmal  part  of  the  taxes;  yes,  I  am  even  anxious  to 
do  so,  but  I  don't  want  to  pay  any  more.  Do  you?  Does  any 
one? 

In  1784  this  word  "proportional"  was  placed  in  our  Constitu- 
tion, and  there  it  has  remained  ever  since.  In  our  legislatures 
we  have  the  voice  of  the  people,  as  expressed  by  a  majority 
of  the  electorate,  which  is  composed  of  twenty-five  percent  of 
the  people.  Only  twenty-five  percent!  Seventy-five  percent 
have  no  voice  whatever  in  the  election  of  the  members  of  the 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  295 

legislature.  It  is  also  true  that,  according  to  our  system  of 
representation,  there  will  be  thirty-four  towns  which  will  be 
unrepresented  in  every  session  of  the  legislature.  That  is  to 
say,  a  General  Court  elected  by  a  majority  of  twenty-iive  per- 
cent of  the  people  of  the  state  (with  thirty-four  towns  not  rep- 
resented at  all)  will  decide  what  our  tax  laws  are  to  be.  Is 
that  what  you  want?  Do  you  wish  to  remove  the  limitation 
from  the  Constitution  which  today  protects  every  man,  woman 
and  child  in  the  state  from  unequal  taxation?  Talk  about 
special  privilege |  Our  legislative  halls  would  be  besieged  at 
every  session.  Talk  about  the  evil  forces  at  work  in  our  midst! 
I  know  what  has  been  working  here,  and  you  have  seen  it.  It 
is  the  insidious  hand  that  is  preying  on  our  institutions.  It  is 
in  this  very  hall,  and  some  of  you  may  have  been  touched  by 
it.  I  assert  when  we  once  get  into  the  grasp  of  this  enemy  to 
all  government  we  will  sigh  for  the  grasp  of  the  hand  of  the 
biggest  corporation  doing  business  in  New  Hampshire.  I  know 
what  I  am  talking  about.  We  are  in  a  bad  way.  Evils  exhibit 
attractive  features.  Did  you  know  that  was  one  of  the  insidious 
things  about  the  worst  diseases?  Whj%  in  consumption,  that 
dreaded  plague  of  the  white  man,  the  subject  blooms  with  a 
fair,  ruddy  countenance,  the  picture  of  health,  only  a  short 
time  before  he  breathes  his  last.  It  is  likewise  true  of  leprosy. 
The  leper  takes  on  a  beautiful  complexion  at  a  certain  stage 
of  this  terrible  malady.  Did  you  ever  know  of  anything  that 
was  mean  in  our  social  life  that  did  not  have  a  fine  covering  on 
the  outside?  These  winsome  things  which  they  put  out  to  us 
to  win  our  endorsement  and  patronage  conceal  the  most  dis- 
astrous things  in  our  political  life.  This  attempt,  if  success- 
ful, is  the  beginning.  Gentlemen,  of  the  end. 

The  proposition  of  ridding  the  Constitution  of  the  word 
"proportional"  is  something  that  I  am  loath  to  contemplate,  and 
yet  it  is  something  that  we  must  think  about  and  grapple  with 
this  morning, — this  very  morning.  They  appeal  to  reason, — 
"Appeal  to  Eeason."  One  of  the  worst  publications  in  this 
country  is  entitled,  "Appeal  to  Reason."  Mr.  Stevens  w^ould 
have  us  believe  that  he  is  looking  out  for  the  little  man.  Don't 
be  deceived.  You  have  seen  how  he  has  rounded  up  on  the 
other  propositions  we  have  had  before  us.  God  bless  you,  Gen- 
tlemen, he  doesn't  care  any  more  about  them  than  I  do.  I  never 
worked  for  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad,  and  I  don't  speak  for 
any  corporation,  and  no  corporation  has  spoken  to  me  through 
counsel  or  otherwise.  I  am  speaking  for  Jesse  M.  Barton  of 
Newport,  New  Hampshire,  and  for  any  member  to  insinuate 
that  corporations  are  working  in  our  midst  is  wrong,  very 
wrong. 


296    JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Drake  has  tried  to  sticH  an  amend- 
ment on  to  this  amendment,  which  is  nothing  but  a  referendum. 
You  see,  our  friends,  the  enemy,  cannot  even  let  this  resolution 
go  through  without  attempting  to  attach  something  in  their 
line  of  legislation.     It  is  all  bad. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Pet-erbormgh.—UT.  Chairman,— 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield.—l  would  like  to  make  a  statement  in 
reply  to  what  the  gentleman  said.  , 

The  Chairman.— Mr.  Smith  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Feterborongh. — I  wish  to  make  one  statement  in 
regard  to  that  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr. 
Stevens,  that  those  who  opposed  his  bill  were  either  laboring 
for  the  corporations  or  were  wealthy  men.  I  stand  here  and 
say  that  I  am  not  counsel  for  anj^  corporation  in  this  state,  and 
I  am  not  a  wealthy  man.  I  stand  here  also  to  emphasize  most 
emphatically,  so  far  as  I  can,  the  position  taken  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Judge  Mitchell.  It  is  the  only  safe  position 
for  this  Convention  to  take  at  this  time.  If  you  will  carefully 
examine  the  bill  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  and 
compare  it  with  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  today,  you 
will  see  what  it  means.  If  you  haven't  compared  it,  you  haven't 
any  idea.  The  word  "proportional"  is  but  a  small  part  of  the 
meaning  of  that  bill,  although  it  is  an  important  part.  It  is  a 
part  which  was  placed  in  that  Constitution  by  design;  it  was  a 
part  which  was  placed  there  to  protect  life;  it  is  a  part  whicii 
was  placed  there  so  that  future  conditions  might  have  the 
benefit  of  it.  That  is  not  all.  If  you  will  read  carefully 
his  bill  you  will  see  that  every  word  referring  to  property, 
polls,  estates  is  eliminated  from  the  Constitution.  You  won't 
find  the  word  "polls,"  you  won't  find  the  word  "estates,"  you 
won't  find  the  word  "property"  within  the  limits  of  that  Con- 
stitution if  his  bill  passes.  What  is  the  result?  The  result  is 
simply  this:  every  legislature,  as  it  meets  here  from  session 
to  session,  will  be  obliged  to  say  what  is  property  that  they 
can  tax.  The  Constitution,  as  he  leaves  it,  says  assessments 
may  be  made,  but  it  doesn't  say  that  that  assessment  shall 
be  made  on  polls  or  property  or  estates;  it  is  left  entirely  to 
each  legislature  to  say  for  themselves  what  shall  be  taxed. 
They  will  come  here  from  session  to  session  with  different  in- 
terests; they  will  come  here  representing  different  parties; 
they  will  come  here  representing  different  people,  diiferent  or- 
ganizations, and  the  majority  of  that  session  will  say  what 
property  shall  be  taxed.  Not  only  that,  they  will  say  this  prop- 
erty, this  class  of  property,  may  be  taxed  at  its  full  value; 
that  class  of  propertj'^  may  be  taxed  at  half  its  value;   another 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  .297 

class  of  property  may  be  taxed  four  mills  on  the  dollar;  an- 
other class  of  property  may  be  entirely  exempt.  It  is  left  with 
that  legislature,  the  majority  of  it,  to  say  what  shall  be  taxed 
and  how  it  shall  be  taxed.  And  I  say  candidly,  and  I  say 
earnestly,  because  I  feel  it,  it  is  a  fundamental  wrong.  It  is 
changing  the  Constitution  in  that  way  which  we  in  the  future 
will  regret.  It  is  changing  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  it  to 
the  caprice,  leave  it  to  the  interest,  leave  it  to  the  passion,  and 
leave  it  to  the  desire  of  the  majority  of  every  legislature,  as 
they  meet  here  from  session  to  session.  I  believe  this  is  one 
of  the  most  important  bills  and  one  of  the  most  important  sub- 
jects, that  can  come  before  this  Convention  for  ns  to  pass. 
Let  us  be  cautious;  let  us  be  careful;  let  us  move  cautiously 
and  not  change  the  Constitution  so  radically  as  to  leave  it 
with  a  majority  of  men  that  may  be  elected  from  session  to 
say  what  shall  be  taxed  and  how  much.  Now  they  might  fix 
it  in  this  way:  Land  shall  be  taxed  at  its  full  value,  buildings 
upon  land  shall  not  be  taxed  at  all,  stock  in  trade  shall  be 
taxed,  or  may  be  taxed  at  three  fourths  of  its  value,  money  at 
interest  may  be  taxed  for  four  mills  on  the  dollar,  or  ex*- 
empted  entirely,  manufacturing  establishments  may  be  taxed 
in  this  way  or  that  way  upon  the  income,  upon  the  profits, 
upon  the  value,  or  any  way  that  those  men  who  are  in  the 
majority  shoula  say.  I,  for  one,  cannot  in  this  Convention  vote 
for  any  proposition  so  radical  and  so  disastrous  as  I  believe 
this  to  be. 

Mr.  Morse  of  NetmnarJcet. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  have 
not  been  stung  by  the  moon-fly.  Now,  for  fear  some  of  you 
may  not  know  what  the  moon-fly  is,  it  is  a  fly  that  stings  or 
bites  people,  and  about  once  in  so  often  they  are  taken  crazy, 
and  I  should  judge.  Sir,  by  some  of  the  arguments  we  have 
listened  to  this  morning  for  or  against  these  measures  that 
some  of  the  speakers  have  been  stung  or  bitten  by  the  moon- 
fly.  How  do  you  expect.  Sir,  that  a  man  vdth  as  many  bones  in 
his  head  as  I  have  can  vote  intelligently  upon  this  proposition? 

The  young  eagle  from  the  wilds  of  Landaff  comes  here  and 
tells  us  what  we  ought  to  do,  and  criticises  the  Courts  for 
their  decisions.  The  distinguished  gentleman  who  is  a  member 
of  the  Court,  a  man  for  whom  I  have  the  highest  respect  as 
well  as  confidence  in  his  judgment,  tells  you  the  reverse.  How 
do  you  expect.  Sir,  I  can  vote  intelligently  upon  this  matter? 
Why,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  I  am  in  the  same  predica- 
ment that  the  Irishman  was  in  when  he  was  a  juryman,  and, 
with  your  permission,  I  will  tell  you  about  him.  After  listening 
to  the  argument  and  plea  by  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  he 


298     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

nudged  his  next,  neighbors  and  said,  "The  fellow  is  guilty." 
"How  do  you  know?"  "The  lawyer  says  so."  "Well,  you  wait 
until  you  hear  the  other  side,"  and  after  he  had  heard  the  plea 
for  the  defense  he  nudged  the  fellow  on  the  other  side  and 
said,  "He  is  innocent.'.'  "How  do  you  know?'"  "He  says  so." 
"Well,  for  Heaven's  sake,  wait  until  the  judge  gives  you  the 
law,"  And  after  he  listened  very  attentively-  to  what  the  judge 
said  in  relation  to  the  law  he  nudged  both  and  said,  "Begory, 
I  don't  know  whether  he  is  guilty  or  innocent." 

So  I  don't  know  whether  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  is  right,  or  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens, 
is  right.  But  I  do  know,  Sir,  that  I  am  -wiser  than  I  thought. 
The  gentleman  from  Nashua  laughs;  I  will  convince  him  I  am 
wiser  than  I  thought.  Mr.  Stevens  saj's  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  said  that  if  j^ou  leave  this  to  the  legislature  the  spe- 
cial interests  will  come  here  at  the  next  session  and  will  labor 
with  you  to  assess  their  taxes  and  their  valuation,  so  they  will 
be  getting  the  rake-off.  Then  I  say  rlon't.  Don't  cut  down  the 
membership  in  the  House.  I  suggested  that  at  the  very  first. 
I  also  said  I  was  willing  to  concede  that  my  father  and  mj-" 
grandfather  were  wiser  than  I  am,  and  they  were  a  devilish 
sight  more  honest,  and  some  of  them  were  here  when  this 
Constitution  was  framed.  Don't  monkey  with  it.  If  you  do, 
you  will  go  home  and  repent  in  ashes  and  sackcloth. 

Now,  Sir,  I  remember  distinctly  when  I  was  a  boy  of  being 
compelled  by  my  mother  to  go  to  prayer-meeting,  Friday  even- 
ing prayer-meeting,  in  the  Methodist  church,  and  they  used 
to  get  up  once  every  four  weeks  and  have  what  they  called  an 
experience  meeting.  They  told  all  the  damnable  things  they 
had  done  in  the  month  before,  and  asked  the  Lord  to  forgive 
them.  Xow  some  of  you  people  come  up  here  and  tell  all  the 
mean  things  jou  have  done  in  the  past,  or  you  contemplate 
doing  in  the  future,  and  ask  to  be  forgiven.  Now,  Sir,  you  have 
heard  a  good  deal  about  the  poor  farmer,  and  my  distinguished 
friend  from  New  Ipswich  comes  down  here  and  tells  all  about 
his  cow.  Well,  I  know  a  calf  is  worth  more  at  six  weeks  old 
than  that  same  calf  is  at  six  years,  I  was  going  to  say.  I  know 
that  bj'  experience.  If  there  is  a  farmer  in  this  Committee  who 
thinks  I  am  not  telling  the  truth,  I  want  him  to  stand  right 
up  here  and  contradict  me.  There  is  not  a  farmer  in  this  Com- 
mittee who  had  a  wood  lot  or  a  lumber  lot  to  sell  but  he  got 
at  least  four  times  as  much  for  it  when  he  sold  it  as  it  was 
taxed  for. 

Now  for  an  illustration:  I  had  the  honor  of  being  chairman 
of  the  Board  of  Selectmen  of  mj'  town  for  more  than  one  year, 


Tuesday,  June  18,  19]  2.  299 

and  we  always  took  the  book  along  wnth  us  to  see  what  the  fel- 
lows before  us  did,  so  we  might  get  a  clue.  We  drove  into  a 
man's  yard  one  morning  and  said,  "Well,  Henrj%  what  have  you 
got  this  year?"  "Oh,  just  the  same  as  I  had  last  year."  "Well, 
we  find  you  were  assessed  at  $1,800.  How  does  that  strike 
you?"  "Well,  you  have  got  to  allow  that  I  have  sold  $2,300 
worth  of  lumber  in  the  last  j'^ear,  and  I  want  to  take  that  off." 
Now  if  you  will  tell  me  how  you  could  take  $2,300  off  of  $1,800 
and  still  have  him  taxed  for  anything,  you  are  smarter  than  1 
am. 

We  went  to  another  place,  and  this  estate,  the  estate  of  John 
Norton,  was  assessed  at  $2,800.  One  of  the  selectmen  said,  "I 
will  give  him  $4,000  for  the  standing  timber."  Well,  we  went  in 
and  asked  him  what  he  had  got  this  year.  We  told  him  we 
didn't  think  he  was  assessed  for  enough,  and  we  were  going  to 
put  it  $3,500.  "That  is  too  much."  One  of  the  selectmen  said, 
"I  will  give  you  $4,000  for  your  timber,"  but  he  wouldn't  take  it. 
We  put  it  up  $200  and  left  it  at  $3,000. 

You  holler  about  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad,  and  you  hol- 
ler about  the  Amoskeag  corporation.  I  am  a  Boston  &  Maine 
Railroad  man;  I  am  for  the  Amoskeag  corporation;  I  am  for 
any  corporation  that  makes  New  Hampshire  busy  and  gives 
more  people  employment.  The  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad  never 
asked  me  to  do  anything  that  wasn't  right.  I  do  not  owe  them 
anything,  and  they  don't  owe  me  anything.  The  Amoskeag 
never  asked  me  to  do  anything.  Anyway,  now  I  am  tired  and 
sick,  Gentlemen  of  this  Committee,  of  your  slandering  the  Bos- 
ton &  Maine  Railroad  and  the  Amoskeag  corporation  and  all 
the  corporations.  There  isn't  a  mother's  son  of  you  that 
wouldn't  be  president  of  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad,  if  you 
could,  and  get  the  salarj^  I  saj'  there  isn't  one  who  would  not 
be  president  of  the  Amoskeag  corporation  and  get  the  salary. 
Now,  why  aren't  you  honest?  If  I  have  got  to  vote,  I  am  going 
to  hook  up  with  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and 
if  you  betray  me  I  will  say  that  John  M.  Mitchell  told  me  I 
had  better  vote  that  way,  and  it  is  up  to  him  and  not  to  me. 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  cannot 
tell  good  stories,  like  the  last  speaker,  but  it  seems  to  me  here 
is  one  fact  that  should  be  given  the  consideration  of  this  Con- 
vention on  this  question.  So  I  will  quote  from  the  State  Tax 
Commission,  which  has  been  quoted  here  several  times  before. 
It  says  this:  "The  Constitutions  of  ten  states  place  no  restraint 
upon  the  reasonable  classification  of  property  for  taxation. 
These  states  are  as  follows:  Utah,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Minne- 
sota, New  Jersey,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  Ver- 


300    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

mont  and  Oklahoma."  You  will  notice  some  of  the.  largest 
states,  including  the  very  largest  in  population,  are  included 
in  this  list,  so  we  are  not  considering  a  very  revolutionary 
measure  when  we  consider  adopting  something  that  New  York 
state  has  in  operation  at  the  present  time.  This  report  is 
signed  by  Allen  R.  Foote,  president  of  the  Ohio  State  Board 
of  Commerce;  Lawson  Purdy,  vice-president  for  the  United 
States,  president  of  the  Department  of  Taxes  and  Assessments, 
New  York  City;  A.  C.  Pleydell,  corresponding  secretary  for  the 
United  States,  secretary  New  York  Tax  Reform  Association, 
New  York  City. 

I  am  going  to  read  just  one  more  paragraph  in  this  report, 
which  will  take  only  a  minute.  "Special  tax  commissions  ap- 
pointed to  investigate  complaints  against  inequalities  of  tax- 
ation in  states  where  the  uniform  rule  is  imbedded  in  the  Con- 
stitution have  pointed  out  time  and  again  that  there  could  be 
no  relief  from  unequal  and  unjust  taxation  until  such  pro- 
visions were  repealed  and  the  legislatures  empowered  to  change 
their  tax  systems  to  conform  to  modern  conditions  of  industrial 
development  and  diversified  investment."  , 

Mr.  Leighton  of  Newfields  moved  that  the  Committee  take 
a  recess  for  one  hour. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro,  moved  to  amend  so  that  the  Com- 
mittee ,  shall  proceed  to  vote  50  minuies  after  recess. 

Mr.  Leighton  of  Newfields  accepted  the  amendment. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  resolution  was  adopted  as  amended. 

After  Recess. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of 
Concord  to  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester, — 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  came  to  the  Convention,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
talking,  but  for  the  purpose  of  listening  and  ascertaining  as 
well  as  I  could  what  ought  to  be  done  in  regard  to  the  various 
propositions  that  would  be  submitted  to  the  Convention,  and 
voting  accordingly.  Now,  this  question  that  we  have  before  us 
is  a  very  important  question,  and  I  think  we  ought  to  discuss 
it  in  fairness.  Tt  isn't  a  question  of  politics;  it  isn't  a  question 
of  whether  Democrats  should  be  in  favor  of  it,  or  whether  Re- 
publicans should  be  in  favor  of  it  or  against  it,  or  whether  so- 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  301 

called  Socialists  are  in  favor  or  against  it.  The  question  is, 
What  ought  to  be  done,  so  far  as  the  public  is  concerned,  in 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire?  You  are  all  very  well  aware 
what  the  questions  are  before  the  Convention.  The  first  propo- 
sition is  one  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr. 
Fellows,  and  amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Judge 
Mitchell.  That  proposition  provides,  in  substance,  for  the  ex- 
emption of  certain  classes  of  property,  that  is,  timberlands, 
various  kinds  of  intangibles,  money  at  interest,  and  money  de- 
posited in  savings  banks,  and  also  provides  for  an  income  tax. 

As  you  are  well  aware,  this  is  an  exception,  and  under  this 
exception  the  language  of  the  present  Constitution  remains  as 
it  is — that  is,  it  required  the  legislature  to  provide  for  a  tax 
levy,  which  shall  be  "proportional"  and  which  shall  also  be 
"reasonable*."  Now  these  two  words  are  retained  in  the  Con- 
stitution under  this  first  proposition,  and  the  various  kinds  of 
property  which  are  classified  are  made  an  exception. 

The  other  proposition  is  contained  in  Resolution  No.  33,  which 
was  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens. 
Under  his  proposition,  he  proposes  to  strike  the  word  "pro- 
portional" out  of  the  Constitution,  leaving  the  word  "reason- 
able" in,  so  that  the  Constitution  would  read,  as  amended  in 
that  part,  "the  legislature  is  authorized  to  levy  reasonable 
taxes,"  not  specifying  upon  what,  but  on  any  class  of  property 
or  any  kind  of  property  that  the  legislature  may  determine 
should  be  assessed  for  taxation.  It  also  leaves  to  the  legis- 
lature the  right  to  classify  all  kinds  of  property  and  determine 
what  the  tax  shall  be  upon  it,  so  that,  as  far  as  this  proposition 
is  concerned,  it  contains  all  that  is  set  forth  in  the  exception, 
together  with  the  further  right  to  assess  other  property  which 
is  not  contained  in  the  exception,  and  also  gives  the  legislature 
the  right  to  grant  exemptions  from  taxation. 

Now,  then,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  if  I  could  make  my- 
self believe  that  this  proposition  is  properly  safeguarded,  T 
should  be  in  favor  of  it,  because  it  does  away  with  an  exception 
to  the  general  rule,  and  provides  a  general  method  of  taxation 
under  the  Constitution,  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  endorse  that 
proposed  amendment  for  the  reason  that  I  do  not  deem  it  suf- 
ficiently safeguarded.  The  word  "proportional,"  as  has  been 
said,  has  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts,  and  it  has  been  held 
to  mean  just  and  reasonable  and  various  other  things  which  re- 
late to  the  assessment  of  taxes,  for  the  purpose  of  making  them 
equal  and  proportional  among  all  the  people.  If  that  word 
"proportional"  is  taken  out,  we  have  the  word  "reasonable" 
left.     It  is  said  the  word  "reasonable"  is  a  very  good  word,  and 


302     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

will  amply  protect  everybody.  Now,  what  is  reasonable  in  one 
condition  is  wholly  unreasonable  in  another,  and  when  you  come 
to  assess  the  tax,  the  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  the 
rate,  and  the  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  assessment 
of  the  tax,  and  all  things  of  that  sort,  are  going  to  arise,  and 
really  it  is  no  check  or  curb,  as  I  understand  it,  upon  the 
legislation  which  may  be  enacted  upon  this  subject. 

That  is  one  reason  why  I  am  opposed  to  it;  I  say  it  opens 
the  subject  to  an  unlimited  extent.  But  it  has  been  suggested 
that  under  another  clause  of  the  Constitution,  Article  12  of  the 
Bill  of  Bights,  it  is  provided  that  each  subject  shall  bear  "his 
just  share"  in  support  of  the  government,  and  it  is  said  that 
this  clause  affords  sufficient  protection;  but,  mind  you,  with  the 
word  "proportional"  stricken  out  of  the  Constitution  another 
construction  of  that  instrument  will  be  demanded,  and  what  the 
court  will  say,  with  the  word  "proportional"  stricken  out,  how 
far  that  will  affect  your  rights  under  the  12th  article  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights  is  an  open  question.  I  don't  know  how  they 
would  decide  it. 

It  is  further  said  that  you  have  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  a  protection.  But 
if  every  tax  question,  every  time  you  have  a  question  arising 
in  regard  to  the  assessment  of  a  tax  in  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, you  have  got  to  go  to  Washington  to  have  it  settled,  that 
is  going  to  be  very  inconvenient,  isn't  it?  It  is  a  very  imprac- 
ticable proposition.  So,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  if  this  is  the  only  safeguard  we  have  when  the  word 
"proportional"  is  stricken  out  of  the  Constitution,  I  am  not  in 
favor  of  it. 

They  say  in  addition  to  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  we  will 
have  a  referendum  tacked  on  here  somewhere,  and  if  the  legis- 
lature should  enact  a  law  that  is  very  unwise  and  very  un- 
reasonable, and  which  imposes  great  hardship  on  the  citizens 
of  the  state,  with  the  referendum  we  get  four  thousand  voters 
to  sign  a  petition,  and  then  put  it  up  to  the  people  to  decide.  _ 
The  very  same  people  who  elected  the  representatives  pass  upon 
this  law,  so  I  do  not  regard  the  referendum  as  a  sufficient  pro- 
tection. 

Now,  then,  I  cannot  support  the  measure  for  these  reasons. 
I  think  favorably  of  it,  provided  it  could  be  properly  safe- 
guarded. In  my  judgment  it  cannot.  There  has  been  some 
reference  here  to  the  Courts,  and  from  what  has  been  s.iid,  'f 
I  understand  it  rightly,  you  are  asked  to  believe  that  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  been  wrong 
in  the  decisions  which  have  been  rendered  in  regard  to  the  tax 


Tuesday,  JuxXe  18,  1912.  303 

propositions  submitted  to  them  in  this  state.  That  depends 
a  good  deal  upon  your  viewpoint.  I  have  sometimes  tried  cases 
in  Court  and  thought  for  the  time  being  the  decision  was  wrong, 
but,  after  I  got  cooled  off  and  looked  the  situation  over,  I  came 
to  the  conclusion  it  was  right  enough.  The  facts  in  each  of 
the  cases  have  been  presented  to  the  Court  in  the  assessment 
districts  where  the  assessments  have  been  levied.  As  was  said 
by  the  gentleman  from  Newmarket,  in  the  assessment  of  prop- 
erty there  has  been  a  very  great  undervaluation.  I  am  not  here 
to  advocate  a  railroad  or  any  other  corporation.  For  twenty 
years  I  represented  the  state,  and  what  little  I  had  to  do  with 
the  corporations  was  against  them,  and  before  that  my  firm  was 
never  retained  by  a  railroad  corporation;  so,  as  far.  as  my  in- 
terests are  concerned,  I  am  not  interested  for  the  corporations; 
but  there  have  been,  Gentlemen,  as  you  know%  several  tax  ap- 
peals. The  corporations,  the  railroads,  have  appealed  from  the 
assessment  of  taxes  levied  upon  them.  Their  complaint  has 
been  that  the  property,  the  real  estate  throughout  the  state, 
was  greatly  undervalued,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Board  of 
Equalization  has  found  in  the  assessment  of  these  taxes  that 
the  real  estate  was  only  appraised  at  64  percent  of  its  actual 
value.  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I  do  not  see  any  argu- 
ment; in  fact,  I  do  not  see  any  reason  at  all  why  anybody  should 
come  before  this  honorable  body  and  seek  to  line  up  the  com- 
munity against  the  Courts;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has  been 
an  undervaluation  in  the  property,  and  for  that  reason  these 
appeals  have  been  taken,  and  that  is  not  the  fault  of  th.^ 
Courts;  it  is  the  fault  of  the  gentlemen  whose  duty  it  was  to 
assess  the  tax. 

Now,  then,  I  do  not  propose  to  take  up  any  more  time  in 
discussing  this  question.  I  shall  vote  against  the  Stevens  propo- 
sition for  the  reasons  I  have  stated.  I  do  feel  as  though  at 
this  time  there  should  be  some  relief  for  the  situation  which 
exists  in  New  Hampshire.  It  is  a  fact  that  the  state  has  in 
various  other  matters  undertaken  to  protect  the  public  interests, 
as  was  said  here  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  at  the  outset,  to  pro- 
tect the  scenic  beauty  of  New  Hampshire,  and  to  do  that  there 
are  many  cases  where  property,  growing  wood  and  timber,  if 
taxed  at  the  full  value,  the  parties  could  not  afford  to  keep  it, 
but  as  an  asset  for  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  it  is  valuable 
and  should  be  protected. 

I  do  not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Pittsfield,  Mr.  Drake, 
that  every  man  who  happens  to  have  a  bond  that  isn't  taxed  is 
a  thief.  The  proposition  presented  is  this:  If  a  man  has  a 
municipal  bond  which  pays  4  percent,  it  is  a  security  which  is 


304     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

safe,  it  is  a  security  which  people  having-  small  amounts  of 
money  desire  to  invest  their  money  in.  Nove,  then,  if  they  have 
to  pay  a  tax  at  full  rate  upon  that,  if  it  is  only  a  4  percent 
bond,  and  that  is  the  usual  rate,  from  31/2  to  4  percent,  they 
must  of  necessity  dispose  of  that  property.  Now,  the  fact  that 
they  dispose  of  property  they  cannot  afford  to  keep  doesn't 
make  them,  Mr.  Chairman,  thieves.  Not  at  all!  It  comes  to  a 
matter  of  necessity.  This  is  not  a  thieving  operation  at  all, 
in  any  sense  of  the  word. 

It  is  desirable,  I  say,  to  protect  that  class  of  securities,  and 
it  is  better  for  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  do  "something  by 
the  way  of  taxation  in  regard  to  those  securities  to  lessen  the 
burden  than  it  is  to  have  those  securities  go  out  of  the  state, 
and  be  replaced  by  other  securities  which  are  less  valuable  and 
less  safe  for  our  citizens  as  an  investment. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andvver. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  theory  involved  in 
these  different,  amendments.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  a  prac- 
tical question  behind  all  this.  We  have  come  together  here  for 
some  purpose.  Prior  to  the  assembling  of  this  Convention 
throughout  New  Hampshire  there  were  certain  subjects  that 
were  apparently  interesting  the  people  of  the  state.  One  was 
the  taxation  question,  involving  practically^  but  three  questions, 
the  lumber  question,  intangibles,  and  the  inheritance  tax.  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  this.  In  the  past,  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire,  when  the  questions  have  been  submitted  to 
them,  have  been  far  more  conservative  than  have  the  people 
who  have  attended  these  Conventions.  In  the  Convention  of 
1902,  of  the  ten  amendments  proposed  by  the  Convention  six 
were  rejected  by  the  people.  We  have  already  presented  to 
the  people,  or  recommended  to  be  presented  to  the  people,  two 
amendments,  apparently  harmless,  and  they  went  through  this 
Convention  with  practically  no  opposition,  yet  both  of  these 
were  beaten  when  submitted  to  the  people  by  the  Convention 
of  1902.  I  speak  of  that  as  calling  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  something  hereafter.  Do  we  want  to  do  anything 
that  will  not  be  approved  by  the  people? 

These  three  things  apparently  appeal  to  this  Convention. 
There  are  some  who  think  we  should  go  further.  Now,  Gen- 
tlemen, if  we  do  go  further,  will  we  get  anything?  If  I  was 
opposed  to  amending  the  Constitution  in  any  respect  in  re- 
lation to  taxation,  I  should  most  heartily  support  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  in  order  to 
load  it  down  so  it  might  be  reasonably  certain  that  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire  would  defeat  it.    Men  interested  in  the  ques- 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  305 

tion  of  allowing  the  lumber  to  be  exempt,  men  interested  in 
the  question  of  permitting-  intangibles  to  be  reached,  and  the 
tax  placed  on  them,  men  in  favor  of  the  income  tax,  do  you 
want  to  imperil  those  three  propositions  by  adding  to  them 
something  that  good  men,  whatever  you  or  I  may  think,  believe 
to  be  revolutionary?  Do  you  want  to  do  it?  If  you  do,  vote  for 
the  Stevens  amendment.  If  you  do  not,  isn't  it  better  to  get 
a  half  loaf  rather  than  nothing?  For  these  reasons.  Gentle- 
men, without  going  into  the  merits  of  the  Stevens  resolution, 
but  believing,  as  I  do,  the  people  of  Xew  Hampshire  will  never 
adopt  it,  I  am  not  in  favor  of  attaching  the  Stevens  amendment 
to  the  amendment  as  now  proposed. 

Mr.  Hohbs  of  Wolf ebi/ro.— Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  have  listened  this  morning,  as  I  have  in  the  past, 
to  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me,  and  I  have  only  ad- 
miration for  every  one  of  them  and  what  they  have  said. 

We  are  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  or  nearly  all,  agreed  that  a  change 
in  the  Constitution  should  be  made  to  allow  the  legislature  to 
classify  property  for  taxation.  The  question  resolves  itself  into 
this  position:  Shall  we  leave  the  word  "proportional"  in  the 
Constitution  and  go  on  and  make  exceptions  for  certain  prop- 
erties, or  shall  we  remove  the  word  "proportional"  and  give  to 
the  legislature  all  the  taxable  properties  of  the  state  to  deal 
with?  In  other  words,  the  legislature,  by  the  rulings  of  the 
court,  has  no  authority  at  the  present  time  to  classify  prop- 
erty for  taxation.  Shall  we  leave  the  matter  as  it  now  is? 
Shall  we  give  the  legislature  the  power  to  classify  a  part  of  the 
property?  Or  shall  we  give  them  the  power  to  classify  all  th» 
property? 

That  is  the  question  before  the  Convention  today.  I  believe. 
Gentlemen,  we  shall  do  much  more  injury  by  letting  in  a  few 
taxables  than  if  we  let  all  in;  much  more  injury  by  opening  th?, 
door  part  way  than  all  the  way.  By  one  method  a  part  of  this 
worshiped  word,  "proportional,"  is  lost;  bj^  the  other,  all.  And 
we  substitute  the  words,  wise,  just  and  equitable,  and  so  on; 
and,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  as  much  reverence  for  these  words 
wise,  just  and  equitable  as  I  have  for  this  much  worshiped 
word,  "proportional,"  that  seems  to  be  causing  all  the  mischief. 

What  reason  is  there  for  classifying  a  part  of  the  property 
and  for  shutting  out  another  part?  The  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Judge  Mitchell,  wishes  to  take  out  from  under  the  word, 
"proportional,"  a  certain  class  of  property,  and  leave  other 
classes  under  it.  Gentlemen,  that  is  just  where  the  injury 
comes  in.  The  legislature  should  have  the  authority  to  place 
taxes  where  they  will  be  the  least  burdensome,  where  they  will 


306      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

be  most  reasonable,  and  easily  paid  and  collected,  and  to  classify 
and  rate  as  seems  reasonable,  wise  and  just;  also  the  authority 
to  impose  an  income  tax.  For  the  Leg-islature  to  do  justice  to 
all,  you  must  give  into  its  hands  all  the  taxable  properties.  It 
may  be  injurious  to  some  which  has  been  withheld  from  them 
by  the  Constitution  if  you  do  not  give  them  all  of  it  to  deal 
with.  The  legislature  should  be  held  responsible  by  the  people 
for  the  tax  laws,  given  credit  for  good  laws  and  censure  for 
bad  ones,  but,  if  we  place  a  barrier  in  the  way,  then  we  hinder 
and  deprive  the  people  of  the  very  object  sought,  better  tax 
laws. 

We  are  sent  here,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  with  full 
power,  subject,  however,  to  the  approval  of  the  people,  and  we 
are  expected  to  do  all  in  our  power  to  bring  about  this  desired 
result.  As  I  said  a  moment  ago,  place  the  taxes  where  they 
will  be  the  least  burdensome,  most  reasonable  and  just.  If  we 
withhold  the  tools  to  accomplish  all  this,  then  we  do  wrong, 
not  only  to  them,  the  legislators,  but  to  the  people.  They  are 
elected  by  the  people  the  same  as  we  are,  and  are  responsible 
to  the  people  as  we  are  responsible.  If  we  make  it  impossible 
for  the  legislature  to  give  us  the  best  laws,  then  they  fail  to 
make  good  and  they  shift  the  responsibility  back  on  to  us,  and 
we  must  shoulder  that  responsibility;  whereas,  if  we  give  them 
a  free  hand,  they  alone  will  be  responsible  for  the  good  or  the 
bad  tax  laws. 

Mr.  Chairman,  would  you  send  a  boatman  out  and  give  him 
one  oar  to  row,  and  expect  him  to  do  a  good  job  in  crossing 
the  stream?  Never.  You  would  give  into  his  hands  a  pair,  and 
if  you  gave  him  the  second  pair  it  would  do  no  harm  if  you  ex- 
pected him  to  do  a  good  job.  If  you  remember  the  Titanic,  it 
was  only  a  few  weeks  ago  when,  after  the  great  architects  of 
the  sailing  world  had  built  that  most  magnificent  ship,  putting 
eight  millions  of  dollars  into  it,  and  when  that  great  ship  was 
out  and  wanted  the  lifeboats,  the  very  necessary  things  that 
they  wanted,  they  were  deprived  of,  they  were  not  there,  and 
hundreds  of  people  went  down  to  a  watery  grave. 

This  great  ship  of  state!  We,  the  architects,  that  are  as- 
sembled here  today,  have  the  authority;  it  has  been  placed  in 
our  hands.  Shall  we  deprive  those  who  are  to  come  after  us 
of  the  lifeboats?  That  part  of  the  taxable  property  that  is 
hidden  behind  the  door  may  be  the  absolute  barrier  in  the 
way  of  adjusting  and  classifying  that  which  you  have  let  out, 
and  vice  versa. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  will  be  held  responsible  for  our  acts  here 
today,  and,  if  we  in  any  sense  withhold  the  lifeboats,  we  will 
fail  in  our  duty. 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  307 

Gentlemen,  in  conclusion,  let  me  say  that  I  am  in  favor  of 
Resolution  No.  35,  because  it  takes  the  barriers  away;  it  gives 
a  free  hand  to  the  legislature  to  give  us  the  best  possible  tax 
laws,  and,  unless  we  do  that,  we  are  doing  a  great  wrong  to 
the  people.  We  are  putting  the  barriers  up,  and  you  and  I  will 
be  held  responsible.  Therefore,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen, 
I  urge  the  adoption  of  Resolution  No.  33.     I  thank  you. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Cancord: — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  I  have  a  great  deal  to  say  in  ten  minutes.  I 
stand  here,  in  connection  with  Mr.  Stevens,  charged  with  hav- 
ing my  judgment  warped  because  I  am  attempting  somewhat 
to  protect  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  against 
corporate  aggression.  I  am  glad  to  be  charged  with  having 
my  judgment  warped  with  that  motive.  I  am  charged  also 
with  spreading  the  bubonic  plague,  whatever  that  means. 
•  What  is  the  question?  The  question  is  whether  we  shall  ex- 
empt certain  things,  or  rather  classify,  and  I  believe  the  people 
will  believe  that  means  exemption.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Stevens  purposes  to  put  this  into 
the  hands  of  the  legislature.  We  have  opposition  from  three 
sources,  first,  those,  of  whom  the  gentleman  from  Peterbor- 
ough is  a  good  example,  who  are  opposed  to  any  change  what- 
ever. We  have  those  who  desire  to  open  the  door  a  little  way 
and  relieve  the  securities  in  which  large  aggregations  of  wealth 
are  generally  invested.  We  have  also  in  opposition  to  us  those 
who  fear  that,  if  we  give  the  legislature  a  chance,  they  will  im- 
pose on  the  railroads  and  other  corporations  a  fair  share  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation,  and  have  it  levied  in  such  a  way  there 
can  be  no  effectual  appeal.  Those  are  the  three  classes  opposed 
to  the  Stevens  amendment. 

My  colleague  from  Ward  4  this  morning  stated  this:  The 
Stevens  amendment  sweeps  out  of  existence  the  word  pro- 
portional and  removes  the  only  safeguard  by  which  the  humblest 
citizen  may  appeal  to  the  Court.  Mr.  Stevens  pointed  out  this 
morning  that,  up  to  this  day,  the  humblest  citizen  never  has 
had  occasion  to  appeal  to  the  Courts.  But,  as  Judge  Mitchell 
went  on,  he  said  this  amendment  would  sweep  away  the  safe- 
guards. Judge  Mitchell,  in  his  argument  before  the  Board  of 
Equalization  on  September  8,  1909,  quoted  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  opinion  on  the  proposition  that  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  is  absolute  protection 
against  disproportional  and  arbitrary  taxation,  and  that  is  the 
law,  as  decided  by  repeated  decisions  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court,  quoted  by  Judge  Mitchell  in  this  pamphlet  which 
I  hold  in  my  hand.    Judge  Doe,  in  State  v.  Express  Company, 


308     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

pointed  out  that  Article  12  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  is  a  still 
further  protection  against  disproportional  and  unjust  taxation. 
I  should  not  be  in  favor  of  the  Stevens  amendment  if  I  did  not 
know  there  were  sufficient  safeguards  to  any  unjust  and  im- 
proper action  by  the  legislature. 

Judge  Mitchell  also  tells  you  that  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution is  the  best  one  in  the  world.  I  would  ask  him  to 
search  from  one  cover  to  the  other  of  that  Constitution  and 
find  one  single  word  limiting  the  power  of  Congress,  except 
that  direct  taxes  shall  be  proportioned  to  the  population  of 
the  several  states.  That  Constitution  contains  no  limitation 
whatever  on  the  subject  of  taxation. 

Now  it  is  claimed  that  this  proposition  is  revolutionary  and 
socialistic,  and  it  will  be  stated  by  some  gentlemen  here  that 
it  is  novel  and  untried.  I  will  begin,  Gentlemen,  as  we  used  to 
in  school,  and  count  the  states.  There  are:  Maine, — a  Con- 
stitution similar  to  ours,  but  decisions  of  the  Courts  different. 
I  do  not  criticise  the  decisions  of  the  Courts.  I  do  say  th.^- 
decisions  of  the  Courts  are  responsible  for  the  position  we  are 
in.  Vermont  has  no  limitations;  Massachusetts,  the  same 
limitations  we  have,  and  they  have  the  same  troubles.  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, — 
these  last  three,  the  largest  and  most  prosperous  manufactur- 
ing and  industrial  states  in  this  country,  all  have  a  Constitution 
without  these  limitations  that  these  gentlemen  ar§  advocating, 
so  I  am  willing  to  ally  New  Hampshire  with  such  socialistic 
states  as  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  on  this 
question. 

We  have  here  a  situation  that  is  absolutely  intolerable,  and 
everybody  agrees  to  it  excepting  a  few  who  fear  any  change. 
We  have  got  into  this  situation  under  the  Constitution  we  have. 
We  point  out  a  plain  way  to  get  out  of  this  intolerable  situ- 
ation. Do  you  know  that  our  whole  system  of  railroad  tax- 
ation is  subject  to  attack  now  in  a  case  in  Court,  brought  there 
by  the  Grand  Trunk  Railroad,  and  we  are  liable  to  be  put  in  a 
situation  where  we  cannot  collect  the  taxes  from  the  railroads 
during  the  next  ten  years  until  we  get  the  Constitution 
amended?  Do  you  know  the  question  whether  the  5  percent 
mortgage  tax  is  constitutional  has  never  been  passed  upon, 
and  that  has  got  to  be  determined.  All  we  ask  is  to  have  these 
questions  put  up  to  the  legislature  for  determination,  and  I 
have  no  fear  of  the  result. 

Talk  about  practical  considerations!  If  you  submit  this 
question  to  the  people  on  a  measure  which  contains,  first,  an 
exemption   of  forest  lands,  then   an   exemption  of  intangibles, 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  309 

whatever  that  means,  and  then  an  exemption  of  this  and  that, 
you  are  going-  to  line  up  against  it  all  the  people  opposed  to 
any  of  these  things,  whereas,  if  you  go  to  the  people  with  a 
straight,  plain  proposition  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  legis- 
lature the  power  to  levy  taxes  the  way  they  think  is  most 
proper  for  the  people  under  all  circumstances,  you  are  going 
before  the  people  with  the  kind  of  a  proposition  they  want. 

Mr.  ruisbury  of  Londondti'ry. — I  had  not  thought  to  impose  my- 
self upon  this  Committee  during  its  session,  but  it  seems  to  me 
there  has  arisen  in  this  discussion  a  disposition  of  some  of  the 
members  to  drift  away  from  the  great  fundamental  point,  and 
that  is  to  allow  the  people  to  settle  this  question  for  them- 
selves. You  want  to  open  the  door  a  little  way  and  take  out, 
for  the  benefit  of  a  certaiij  few,  certain  parts  of  this  old  Con- 
stitution, like  your  intangibles,  and  your  forest  lands,  most  of 
which  are  owned  by  wealthy  people,  and  then  close  the  door, 
and  it  has  appeared  to  me  this  morning  almost  like  Niobe  weep- 
ing over  her  loss,  when  the  gentleman  from  Concord  gets  up 
here  and  deplores  the  fact  that  the  Boston  &  Maine  will  come 
back  into  politics  and  will  control  this  taxation  question.  Gen- 
tlemen, that  is  a  proposition  that  would  make  anybody  weep, 
when  you  come  to  think  that  for  thirty  years  they  had  control 
of  the  situation,  and  it  is  only  within  the  last  four  years,  by 
the  voice  of  the  people,  that  they  have  been  raised  about  three 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  their  taxes  in  New  Hampshire. 
Now  we  want  to  have  this  question  submitted  to  the  vote  of 
the  people  of  this  state,  and  I  submit  to  you  that  the  people 
of  this  state,  or  any  other  people  in  this  United  States,  when 
the  question  is  properly  discussed,  when  it  is  put  before  them 
by  the  men  of  their  states,  are  a  fair,  honest  and  upright  people, 
and  they  will  decide  this  question  upon  its  merits. 

It  has  been  well  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Andover  that 
the  electors  of  New  Hampshire  have  failed  to  pass  and  ratify  a 
great  many  questions  which  we  have  submitted.  That  is  a  mat- 
ter of  history.  The  people  are  conservative,  and  I  believe  you 
cannot  go  back  to  your  constituents  and  look  them  closely  in 
the  face  and  say,  we  don't  dare  to  trust  two  thirds  of  you. 
If  you  can,  our  whole  system  of  constitutional  government  in 
this  state  is  at  fault.  If  you  can,  the  people  of  this  state  and 
of  this  nation  are  in  a  position  from  which  it  will  take  some- 
thing more  than  we  can  do  in  this  Convention  to  extricate 
them. 

This  morning  there  appeared,  as  has  been  said,  an  advertise- 
ment in  the  columns  of  the  Mancliester  Union,  and  it  says:  "An- 
other halt  will  be  called  to  wait  the  action  of  New  Hampshire 


310     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

upon  such  amendments  to  its  Constitution  as  initiative  and 
referendum  and  the  Stevens  amendment,  which  opens  the  door 
to  even  confiscatory  taxation,  if  the  temporary  majority  should 
so  declare."  We  are  ur»'ed  to  weigh  the  self-government  of  this 
state  against  the  building-  of  a  little  hotel  and  a  railroad  on  a 
mountain.  I  am  appalled  that  such  a  proposition  should  ever 
be  put  before  the  people  of  this  state.  I  have  as  much  rever- 
ence as  the  eloquent  gentleman  from  Concord  for  those  grand 
founders  of  the  old  Constitution,  and  the  founders  of  this  state, 
but  I  can  hardly  believe,  as  I  look  back  upon  our  traditions  and 
remember  its  gallant  men,  from  John  Stark,  John  P.  Hale,  that 
founder  and  believer  in  personal  liberty,  who  left  his  party 
and  stood  for  human  liberty  and  the  rights  of  every  citizen, — ■ 
I  am  surprised  that  such  a  proposition  should  ever  be  put  be- 
fore the  people  of  this  state.  We  have  a  grand  history  and  a 
grand  tradition, — a  tradition  coming  down  from  the  past  of 
which  we  are  proud;  one  that  stood  upon  the  merits  and  abil- 
ity of  its  citizens;  one  that  shed  its  blood  in  the  Revolutionary 
war  and  in  the  Eebellion,  when  men  went  out  and  shed  their 
blood  for  this  government;  a  tradition  which,  thank  God,  com- 
mercialism cannot  interfere  with,  which  the  millions  of  a 
Rockefeller,  Carnegie,  or  a  Morgan  cannot  buy, — and  I  appeal 
to  you.  Gentlemen,  to  stand  by  those  traditions  and  to  submit 
this  question,  to  submit  the  three  or  four  great  public  quest- 
ions, whether  you  are  for  them  or  not.  I  am  not  for  woman's 
suffrage,  but  I  believe  that  is  a  public  question,  as  this  is,  and 
as  one  or  two  others,  the  initiative  and  referendum,  and  three 
or  four  great  public  questions,  which  should  be  decided,  not  on 
our  own  feelings,  but  upon  the  fact  that  they  are  great  public 
questions  and  the  public  should  have  a  right  to  discuss  them. 
They  should  have  a  right  to  study  them,  and  if  you  cannot 
trust  two  thirds  of  your  people,  you  cannot  go  home  a  man,  and 
look  your  neighbors  in  the  face. 

Mr.  Wentioorth  of  Smi4wicli. — I  have  listened  with  pleasure  in 
this  matter  of  taxation,  but  when  I,  with  others,  was  elected 
as  a  member  of  this  Constitutional  Convention,  I  supposed  we 
were  coming  here  to  frame  some  kind  of  propositions  to  revise 
the  organic  law.  We  are  not  here  as  legislators,  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  legislative  questions  have  been  included  in  this  dis- 
cussion. But  on  a  moment's  reflection  we  realize  that  we  are 
here  to  propose  fundamental  law  to  be  submitted  to  the  people 
as  part  of  our  Constitution.  The  legislature  can  come  here 
every  two  years  and  pass  an  act,  and  then  can  repeal  the  act, 
but  this  subject  of  taxation  pertains  to  fundamental,  organic 
law,  and  is  very  important;    and  if  put  into  the  e-onstitution 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  311 

should  be   so  expressed  there   as   to   be  able  to  stand  future 
tests. 

The  gentleman  from  Londonderry^  Mr.  Pillsbury,  who  has  just 
spoken,  referred  to  John  P.  Hale,  and  there,  too,  hangs  in  this 
hall  the  portrait  of  Daniel  Webster,  who  was  the  "expounder 
of  the  Constitution."  We  delight  to  honor  the  foresight  and 
statesmanship  of  such  New  Hampshire  men  as  they  were.  If 
this  is  a  legislative,  or  a  political  assembly,  let  us  act  accord- 
ingly; but,  if  the  purpose  is  to  put  something  into  the  Consti- 
tution to  stand  after  we  are  gone,  and  for  our  children,  then 
let  us  see  if  we  cannot  be  right  in  the  beginning. 

Mr.  WMttemore  of  Dover. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  proj)ose  to  occupy  your  time  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question  only  for  a  moment,  for  it  has  been  fully  discussed. 

I  oppose  this  resolution  on  the  very  grounds  that  some  of  its 
advocates  have   advanced  in  favor   of  its  passage. 

This  resolution  would  take  from  the  legislature  all  limita- 
tions in  matters  of  taxation,  as  I  read  and  interpret  it,  and 
would  leave  no  guide  or  limitation  on  the  legislature  in  classi- 
fying taxes  upon  all  classes  of  property  in  this  state.  It  could 
classify  any  or  all.  Now  what  would  be  the  result?  We  know, 
from  past  experience,  that  the  interests  are  always  represented, 
and  will  look  after  the  classification  of  their  property,  but 
how  about  the  small  taxpayer  and  farmer?  Would  they 
be  represented?  No;  except  as  they  are  represented  in  the 
membership  of  the  legislature.  They  will  have  no  paid  retainer 
to  look  after  taxation  affecting  their  property.  Then,  as  each 
interest  appears  before  the  legislature  and  gets  a  special  tax 
fixed  to  cover  its  property,  it  can  sit  back  and  say,  we  are  not 
interested  in  checking  extravagant  appropriations,  as  the  bal- 
•  ance  of  the  tax  levy  will  have  to  be  paid  by  the  farmer  and 
the  small  householder.  Therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to 
enter  my  protest  against  this  resolution. 

The  time  having  arrived  at  which  the  Committee  voted  to 
take  a  vote  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord, 
to  amend  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Conord  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  95  gentlemen  voted  in  the  ai^irmative 
and  231  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  amendment 
was  not  adonted. 


312    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Question  being  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manches- 
ter,— 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  223  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
ani^  33  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative  and  the  resolution 
was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  that  the  Committee 
do  now  rise  and  report  back  to  the  Convention  all  the  proposed 
amendments  relating  to  taxation  which  are  before  the  Com- 
mittee, and  recommend  that  those  proposed  amendments  and 
the  whole  subject  of  taxation  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department  with  instructions  to  that  Committee 
to  report  as  soon  as  possible  a  proposed  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  which  will  embody  the  provisions  of  the  vote 
which  has  just  been  adopted, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 
In  Conyention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to 
whom  were  referred  Resolution  No.  5,  Relating  to  Taxation 
of  Wild  and  Forest  Lands  and  Money  at  Interest,  Resolution 
No.  33,  Relating  to  Taxation,  Resolution  No.  37,  Relating  to 
Income  Tax,  Resolution  No.  39,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild 
Lands,  Resolution  No.  50,  Relating  to  Taxes,  Resolution  No. 
51,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Incomes,  having  considered  the 
same  recommend  that  they  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  with  instructions  to  that  Committee 
to  report  as  soon  as  possible  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution which  will  embody  the  provisions  of  the  following 
resolution: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Committee  that  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  state  be  submitted  to 
the  people  which  will  give  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  clas- 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  313 

sify  intangibles  and  growing  wood  and  timber  for  the  purposes 
of  taxation,  and  to  make  reasonable  exemptions,  and  further 
to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  from  intangible  property. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendations  adopted. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  moved  that  the  orders  whereby 
all  res'olutions  relating  to  representation  in  the  House  of  Kep- 
resentatives  and  Senate  were  refen^ed  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  be  vacated,  and  the  same  be  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Legislative  Department. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill,— 

Mr.  Allen  Uollis  of  Concord. — Mr.  President,  do  I  understand 
correctly  that  this  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  is  the 
same  Committee  which  now  has  the  subject  of  taxation,  upon 
which  it  has  a  hearing  this  afternoon?  I  do  not  want  to  inter- 
fere in  any  way,  but  it  strikes  me  that  we  are  really  taking 
the  load  oif  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  where  it  has  been,  and 
putting  it  on  to  the  Legislative  Committee,  and  they  may  have 
some  difficulty  in  dealing  with  it.  This  is  no  criticism  of  the 
Committee  or  the  motion,  but  I  should  like  to  make  an  inquiry 
of  the  Chairman  of  that  Committee  whether  he  would  prefer 
that  his  Committee  should  have  this  work,  or  whether  this  rep- 
resentation matter  might  perhaps  be  placed  somewhere  else.  I 
have  no  particular  interest  in  any  particular  form  of  getting 
it  done,  and  make  this  suggestion  only  in  the  interest  of 
progress. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — While  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department  has  no  desire  to  shirk  any  work  of  this  Convention, 
yet  it  might  perhaps  facilitate  matters  if  a  special  committee 
were  appointed  for  this  purpose. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth. — Wouldn't  it  facilitate  matters  if 
the  sense  of  the  Convention  was  taken  on  the  proposition  of 
reducing  the  House  and  increasing  the  Senate,  and  whether  they 
desire  the  district  system  or  not?  Those  three  propositions  be- 
fore us  went  to  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — The  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Portsmouth  reminds  me  of  our  procedure  in  the  last  Conven- 
tion on  this  subject,  and  perhaps  the  rest  of  the  day  might 
as  well  be  employed  in  ascertaining  where  we  stand  on  this 
question  as  in   anything  else.     You  refer  these  questions  to  a 


314     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

I&pecial  Committee  at  this  time,  and  they  have  no  instructions. 
They  are  simply  so  many  individuals.  We  would  simply  report 
if  we  got  any  agreement  in  either  a  Special  or  Standing  Com- 
mittee, we  would  report  what  the  majority  thought  would  prob- 
ably go.  Now,  shan't  we  save  time  if  we  accept  the  suggestion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth  and  go  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole  on  this  subject,  and  then,  after  having  determined 
some  definite  facts,  refer  it  to  either  a  Standing  Committee  or 
a  Special  Committee. 

Mr.  Pillshury  of  London^rry. — It  seems  to  me,  with  past  ex- 
perience on  this  question, — I  have  served  in  two  Conventions 
where  it  has  been  discussed, — that  we  will  get  somewhere  as 
soon  as  we  decide  whether  we  are  to  have  the  district  or  the 
present  system.  Now,  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  we  can 
confine  ourselves  to  that  question  and  have  the  vote  taken 
upon  the  district  or  the  other  system.  Then  we  can  refer  it 
to  a  Committee.  If  it  is  the  district  system,  refer  the  district 
system;   or,  if  the  town  system,  we  can  refer  that  system. 

Mr.  Whitcher  withdrew  his  motion. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  moved  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  all  resolutions  relating  to  representation  in  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  and  Senate. 

Mr.  WMttemore  of  Dover. — I  rise  to  inquire  as  to  whether  it 
is  the  intention  of  the  Convention  to  go  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole  under  the  morning  session,  or  take  an  adjournment 
to   afternoon  session. 

T?ie  President. — It  makes  no  difference  really.  It  would  be  a 
good  plan  if  we  should  adjourn  the  morning  session  and  come 
into  afternoon  session. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  withdrew  his  motion. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whittemore  of  Dover  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  3.05  o'clock. 

Afteunoon^  Session. 

The  Convention  met  immediately  after  adjournment  of  the 
morning  session. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  315 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  the  Convention 
resolved  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  all  resolutions  relating  to  representation  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  and  Senate,  the  same  being, — 

Resolution  Xo.  1,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Resolution  K'o.  13,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  No.  14,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  15,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  18,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  22,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  26,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  Representa- 
tives in  Cities  and  Towns  of  less  than  800  Inhabitants. 

Resolution  Xo.  35,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

Resolution  Xo.  2,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolution  Xo.  25,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  Committee, 
when  it  shall  rise,  report  to  the  Convention  that  it  is  the  sense 
of  the  Committee  that  the  Convention  agree  to  the  district 
system,  as  the  same  is  outlined  in  Resolution  Xo.  13,  Relating 
to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Question  being  on  motion  of  Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Manches- 
ter,— 


316    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  PiUshiiry  of  Manchestci'. — I  should  like  to  speak  on  Reso- 
lution No.  13,  which  I  offered,  and  which  has  been  discussed  by 
other  members  of  the  Committee.  Resolution  No.  13  is  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  reduced  to  a  fixed  num- 
ber of  300,  and  that  the  state  shall  be  divided  into  300  dis- 
tricts of  approximately  equal  population  for  the  purposes  of 
representation.  The  resolution  makes  no  reference  to  the  size 
of  the  Senate. 

Now,  there  has  been  much  discussion  in  favor  of  the  other 
resolutions  and  against  them,  and  I  believe  that  the  district 
system  can  be  brought  forward  at  this  time  as  sort  of  a  com- 
promise between  the  other  propositions  that  have  been  brought 
forward.  The  other  day  the  question  was  asked  by  Mr.  Young 
of  Manchester,  Why  should  the  House  be  reduced  at  all?  The 
only  answer  at  that  time  made  to  that  question  was,  It  would 
save  the  state  some  money.  And  really  I  do  not  believe  that 
the  majority  of  the  Committee  want  to  reduce  the  size  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  verj^  much.  The  main  objection,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Landaff  said  the  other  day,  to  the  pres- 
ent large  size  of  the  House  is  that  it  is  unwieldy.  That  means 
it  cannot  be  handled;  therefore  I  am  not  in  favor  of  reducing 
the  size  very  much.  And  in  this  amendment  that  I  have  offered 
it  is  provided  that  there  shall  be  300  members  in  the  House, 
which  is  a  comparatively  large  number,  and  which  would  give 
New  Hampshire  still  the  largest  proportional  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives in  the  country. 

Now,  the  arguments  advanced  against  district  sjstems  come 
principally  from  representatives  of  the  rural  districts,  who 
believe  in  the  idea  of  the  little  republic, — who  believe  in  town 
representation.  The  effect  of  town  representation  has  been  to 
under-represent  the  cities  and  large  towns.  Figures  showing 
that  were  presented  for  your  consideration  the  other  day,  and 
I  shall  not  take  up  the  time  in  going  through  the  statistics  in 
regard  to  it.  The  reason  why  cities  jand  large  towns,  and 
principally  the  city  of  Manchester,  should  not  get  representa- 
tion that  their  population  is  entitled  to  is  twofold.  The  first 
reason  advanced  was  that  in  past  legislatures  the  country 
members  have  had  more  brains  than  the  city  members,  there- 
fore the  country  towns  should  keep  their  representation  in 
order  to  make  up  in  brains  what  the  legislature  might  lack.  If 
the  cities  had  the  representation  that  is  rightfully  coming  to 
them,  my  answer  to  that  is,  that  if  the  average  representa- 
tive of  Manchester  does  not  have  as  many  brains  as  the  aver- 
age representative  from  the  hill  town,  then  you  should  give  us 
more  representatives,    so    we   can    make    up   our   deficiency   in 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  317 

brains.  The  second  objection:  In  the  large  towns  and  cities, 
and  principalh-  in  the  citj'  of  Manchester,  there  is  a  large  part 
of  the  population  which  is  ignorant,  without  property,  and 
does  not  have  the  interests  at  stake  that  the  country  people 
have.  Xow  there  are  in  my  ward  in  Manchester  a  large  num- 
ber of  those  people  referred  to, — they  are  Polanders  and  Lith- 
uanians— and  I  believe  if  I  had  time  I  could  show  you  that  the 
interests  of  those  people,  although  they  are  not  all  voters, — 
very  few  of  them  are  voters, — their  interests  are  just  as 
important  to  them,  and  to  the  state  as  a  whole,  as  the  inter- 
ests of  any  community  of  farmers.  I  believe  that  they  bear  their 
just  share  of  the  burden  of  taxation,  and  all  the  other  bur- 
dens imposed  bj^  the  state.  Many  of  them  are  acquiring  the 
rights  of  citizenship.  I  was  told  the  other  day  by  a  gentle- 
man at  the  city  hall  in  Manchester  that  in  1896,  in  the  presi- 
dential election,  when  Bryan  and  McKinley  and  Debs  were 
running,  that  there  wasn't  a  single  Greek  in  the  city  who  had 
the  right  to  vote;  that  in  1900  there  was  only  one  who  had 
the  right  to  vote;  that  in  1904,  when  Eoosevelt  was  elected, 
there  were  only  three,  I  believe,  who  exercised  the  right  of 
suffrage.  At  the  last  presidential  election,  when  Taft  and 
Bryan  and  Debs  were  running,  there  were  over  thirty  who 
had  that  right,  and  this  year,  possibly,  with  Roosevelt  and 
Bryan  and  Debs  again  running,  I  believe  there  are  over  sixty 
who  have  the  right;  and  in  1916,  with  Roosevelt  and  Bryan  and 
Debbs  again  running,  we  will  have  upwards  of  300  who  will 
have  the  right.  Gentlemen,  these  people  in  the  cities  have 
their  interests  tlaat  affect  them,  affect  their  homes,  the  edu- 
cation of  their  children,  and  the  prosperit}'  of  their  families, 
just  as  much  as  the  people  in  the  country.  There  is  no  ob- 
jection to  the  district  sj^stem  that  can  possibly  be  put  up  on 
this  floor  except  this  objection,  that  you  country  members 
have  representatives  in  the  legislature  now  to  which  you  are 
not  entitled,  but  which  you  propose  to  maintain,  simply  because 
it  is  a  good  thing,  and  you  don't  want  to  let  go  of  it.  Now, 
most  of  the  propositions  that  have  been  advanced  in  regard 
to  the  representation  in  the  House,  except,  perhaps.  Reso- 
lution No.  13,  propose  to  maintain  the  town  system, — all  of 
them  propose  to  maintain  the  town  system, — but  they  propose 
increasing  the  mean  increasing  number  of  population,  which 
will  provide  for  the  second,  third  and  fourth  representatives. 
Now,  at  the  present  time,  as  figures  introduced  the  other  day 
showed  to  you,  the  cities  and  large  towns  are  under-repre- 
sented. One  vote  in  the  hill  town,  in  the  small  districts,  is 
equivalent   to   three   or   four  votes   in   the   city   of  Manchester. 


318     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Now,  every  proposition  introduced  which  provides  for  the  town 
system,  with  six  or  eight  hundred  people  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative, and  raising"  the  increasing  mean  up  to  1,800  or  2,400, 
provides  that  that  inequality  shall  be  increased.  Now,  I  be- 
lieve, if  we  are  going  to  make  anj-  change,  we  should  make  a 
change  towards  decreasing  the  inequality  instead  of  increasing 
it.  The  wording,  as  was  pointed  out  the  other  day,  of  most 
of  these  propositions  that  have  been  introduced  on  the  town 
system  is  a  joke;  they  provide  that  in  order  that  representation 
shall  be  as  equal  as  possible,  we  shall  change  the  Constitution, 
so  that  it  will  be  more  unequal  than  it  ever  has  been.  Now,  I 
submit  to  you,  if  we  are  going  to  change  it  at  all,  let's  change 
it  in  the  right  'lirection.  We  have  got  to  come  sooner  or  later 
to  the  district  system,  because  the  district  system  is  the  only 
means  yet  devised  whereby  a  man  has  the  same  share  in  the 
government,  whether  he  lives  in  the  country  or  in  the  city. 
The  arguments  advanced  by  the  initiative  and  referendum 
forces  the  other  daj^ — j^ou  know  what  they  were, — were  that 
we  should  have  the  initiative  and  referendum,  because  at  the 
present  time  the  people  do  not  get  directly  enough  in  control 
of  legislation.  Now,  if  you  adopt  any  of  these  other  resolutions 
based  on  town  representation,  you  will  remove  further  than 
ever  the  direct  influence  of  the  majority  of  voters  to  elect 
their  representatives.  If  you  want  to  do  away  with  the  neces- 
sity of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  why  not  take  the  right 
step  in  the  right  direction  and  provide  that  all  the  people  in 
the  state  shall  have  an  equal  say  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives ? 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover. — I  have  no  desire  to  stifle  the  debate. 
There  have  been  matters  discussed  here  that  people  want  to 
know  about;  but  I  don't  believe  there  is  a  single  man  in  this 
Committee  whose  vote  will  be  changed  by  any  argument, — 
by  argument  one  way  or  the  other.  I  don't  know  as  I  will 
make  a  motion,  but  I  suggest  that,  inasmuch  as  we  have  been 
in  session  practically  longer  than  most  any  other  Convention, 
that  the  speakers  confine  themselves  to  a  few  moments,  and 
then  vote.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this  House  who  does  not 
know  whether  he  wants  the  town  or  district  system;  if  not, 
why  not.  , 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover  moved  that  the  Committee  vo^e  on 

the  matter  of  representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Andover, — 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  moved  to  amend  by  making  the  time 

at  3.22  o'clock. 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  319 

The  amendment  was  accepted  by  Mr.  Stone  of  Andover. 
Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Andover  as 
amended, — 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keen^. — I  did  not  have  an  opportunity  last 
week  to  talk  at  all  upon  any  motion  or  resolution  in  regard 
to  representation,  but  1  do  wish  to  say  a  few  words  in  rela- 
tion to  the  difference  between  the  town  and  district  system. 
Of  course,  the  Constitution  provides  that  your  representation 
shall  be  as  equal  as  possible,  but,  when  the  Constitution  was 
adopted,  the  men  who  adopted  it  intended  representation  should 
not  be  based  upon  population,  but  upon  municipalities.  Popu- 
lation is  now  supreme  in  the  cities.  It  occurs  to  me  that  it  is 
not  the  time  for  these  people  of  the  back  country  towns,  and 
particularly  in  view  of  the  light  we  have  gotten  today  from 
the  discussion  of  the  tax  question,  to  have  the  inhabitants  of 
these  towns  surrender  all  the  rights  they  have  to  the  city. 
Now  the  trouble  with  the  district  system  is,  that  every  time 
we  have  a  change  of  parties  or  a  change  of  majority  in  the  leg- 
islature, you  are  going  to  get  back  and  forth — 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nasfma. — Point  of  order.    It  is  time  that  we  vote. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene. — Well,  I  got  by  you  as  far  as  I  could,  and 
I  will  discuss  the  matter. 

The  Chairman. — The  Chair  will  rule  that  the  gentleman  from 
Keene  was  apparently  making  introductory  remarks,  so  that 
the  point  of  order  taken  by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua  was 
not  well  taken,  and  the  gentleman  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Madidcn  of  Keene. — Thank  you.  I  intended  to  come  to  this 
question.  It  is  not  fair  to  me,  because  I  have  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  discuss  this  matter,  to  shut  off  the  debate  in  two 
minutes,  and  I  do  not  think  that  the  amendment  proposed 
ought  to  be  adopted  at  this  present  time.  I  presume  there 
are  a  whole  lot  of  people  who  desire  to  discuss  this  particular 
matter  pro  and  con.  It  may  have  been  all  discussed  last  week, 
and  it  may  not.  I  should  think  that  at  least  four  o'clock  was 
time  to  take  a  vote. 

Owing  to  the  discussion,  the  time  at  which  the  vote  was 
to  be  taken,  under  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Andover  hav- 
ing passed,  the  Chair  ruled  that  the  motion  was  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  moved  that  the  Committee  proceed 
to  vote  at  3,25  o'clock. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 


320     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  moved  that  the  Committee  do  now 
rise  and  report  to  the  Convention  the  resolutions  relating  to 
the  apportionment  of  representation  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives with  the  recommendation  that  they  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  with  instructions  to 
report  as  soon  as  possible  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
based  upon  the  town  system. 

The  Chair  ruled  the  motion  not  in  order. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Manches- 
ter.— 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  called  for  a  di\asion. 

Division  being  had,  70  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative, 
and  206  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative  and  the  motion  did 
not  prevail. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  moved  that  the  Committer  do 
now  rise  and  report  to  the  Convention  that  it  is  the  sense  of 
the  Committee  that  the  apportionment  of  representation  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  be  reduced  to  approximately 
300  members. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Ports- 
mouth,— 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  moved  to  substitute  for  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  that  the  Committee  do  now 
rise,  and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  all  resolutions  re- 
lating to  the  apportionment  of  representation  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department  with  instructions  to  report  as  soon  as  possible  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  relating  to  the  apportionment 
of  representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  based  on 
the  town  system,  and  that  the  number  of  representatives  do 
not  exceed  350. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  to  substitute, — 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  withdrew  his  motion. 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  321 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene, — 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  moved  to  amend  by  striking 
out  the  figures  ''350"  and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  fig- 
ures "300." 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Boynton 
of  Portsmouth, — 

Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket  moved  to  amend  the'  amendment 
by  striking  out  the  figures  "300*"  and  inserting  in  phice  there- 
of, the  figures  "409." 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Morse  of 
Newmarket, — 

Mr.  Morse  of  Neiomarket. — Mr.  Chairman,  in  defense  of  that 
motion  I  want  to  say,  for  the  benefit  of  this  Committee,  that 
the  new  census  will  give  you  409  representatives  in  the  House 
of  Representatives.  There  are  421  seats,  and  there  is  no  argu- 
ment that  can  be  produced  that  will  say  you  haven't  got  seat- 
ing-room  sufficient.  Now  you  are  well  aware.  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee,  that  I  said  at  the  first  I  was  utterly  opposed 
to  a  reduction  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  I  say  so  nov.% 
I  ain.in  favor  of  the  town  system.  I  believe  every  town  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  every  ward  in  every  city  in  this 
state,  should  have  a  representative,  equal  to  that  number  which 
they  will  be  entitled  to  under  the  promulgation  of  the  new 
census.  Then  it  will  be  harder  work  to  control  them.  Make 
it  409,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Rowe  of  Kensington. — I  simply  want  to  second  Doctor 
Morse's  remarks.  Awhile  ago  I  seconded  his  motion,  and  I 
second  it  again,  and  I  hope  his  amendment  will  be  accepted. 
Make  it  409,  if  that  is  it. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover. — I  don't  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making 
a  motion.  If  you  want  it,  that  is  all  right.  If  that  motion 
passes,  the  next  motion  should  be  that  we  indefinitely  postpone 
all  matters  relating  to  the  subject  of  representation,  because 
it  leaves  it  where  it  is.  We  might  as  well  take  a  vote  aft-er 
this  to  indefinitely  postpone  as  that  will  be  the  effect  of  it, 
and  do  nothing  on  the  question  of  representation.  Now,  if 
that  is  what  you  want,  that  is  what  yon  want  to  vote  for. 

Mr.  Whitcfier  of  HaverliiU. — I  give  notice  that  if  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Morse  shall  pass,  I  will  make  a  motion  that  we  in- 
definitely postpone  the  whole  matter,  and  leave  it  as  it  is  now. 


322    Jouhnal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

If  we  cannot  have  fair  representation,  and  a  square  deal  in 
representation,  which  the  district  system  will  give,  let  us  not 
make  it  any  more  unfair  than  it  is  now.  Let  us  stand  by  what 
we  have,  600  as  the  basis,  and  1,200  for  the  additional  mem- 
bers. Leave  the  Constitution  alone,  as  it  is  now,  if  we  can- 
not have  the  district  system,  and  we  have  already  voted  em- 
phatically not  to  have  that.  I  shall  make  that  motion  if  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Newmarket  pre- 
vails. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. — I  rise  to  say  that  I  will  be  the  first, 
if  possible,  to  second  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Haver- 
hill. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — I  haven't  made  it  yet. 

Mr.  Uobbs  of  Wolfeboro. — If  he  has  the  opportunity  to  make  it, 
I  will  second  his  motion. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — I  do  not  propose  to  make  any  speech 
on  this  question,  but  I  do  believe  it  to  be  the  sentiment  of 
this  Convention, — I  believe  it  to  be  the  sentiment.  Gentlemen, 
throughout  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, — that  the  present  rep- 
resentation continue.  We  tried  ten  years  ago  to  decrease  the 
size  of  the  House,  and  increase  the  size  of  the  Senate.  I  am  in 
favor  of  a  large  House,  and  I  hope  the  number  will  not  be  lim- 
ited to  409,  if  the  census  gives  us  more.  The  argument  was 
made  that  we  hadn't  house  room  enough,  but  we  now  have 
room  enough,  and  I  hope  the  motion  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Towle  of  Xorthwood  moved  that  the  whole  matter  of 
representation  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  be  indefinitely 
postponed. 

The  Chair  ruled  that  the  motion  is  not  in  order. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Morse  of 
Newmarket, — 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
now  rise  and  report  to  the  Convention  that,  having  considered 
the  resolutions  relating  to  representation  in  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives,  it  is  unable  to  agree  upon  any  proposed 
change  in  apportionment. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill,— 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  323 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  raised  the  point  tliat  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  does  not  supersede  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  and  the  amendments  thereto  offered  by 
Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  and  Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket. 

The  Chair  ruled  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill takes  precedence  over  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of 
Keene  and  the  amendments  thereto. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill— 

Mr.  Madden  of  ^m?e.— Now,  T  wish  to  speak  on  that  motion. 
Now,  let's  be  sensible.  If  there  is  a  majority  who  want  one 
system  or  another,  we  can  agree,  there  is  no  question  about 
it.  There  is  no  necessity  to  adopt  a  motion  "that  we  cannot 
agree,"  because  it  is  nonsense.  I  proposed  a  certain  measure 
here;  it  may  not  be  the  wisest  one.  I  think  it  is  the  most 
favorable  one,  and  the  one  most  likely  to  be  endorsed  by  the 
people  and  ratified  by  the  people,  to  make  the  house  350.  I 
think  my  recent  motion  is  a  proper  one  to  submit  to  the  Con- 
vention,— that  we  believe  it  should  not  exceed  350  members,  and 
that  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  be  instructed  to 
prepare  a  resolution  embodying  those  ideas.  If  the  Committee 
cannot  formulate  a  proper  resolution,  Ihey  can  report  that  to 
the  Committee,  and  perhaps  we  can  go  into  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  and  form  one  ourselves.  It  does  not  bind  the  Commit- 
tee, except  that  they  are  supposed  to  bring  in  either  350  or 
409  or  450,  which  is  permanent.  By  making  some  certain  fig- 
ure you  have  got  your  House  fixed,  and  you  are  not  having  it 
increased  every  ten  years.  It  strikes  me  that  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Whitcher  should  be  voted  down — the  two  amendments 
should  be  voted  down, — and  then  we  should  report  to  the  Con- 
vention we  are  in  favor  of  a  town  system;  that  the  House 
should  not  contain  more  than  350,  and  that  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department  should  bring  in  some  amendment  to 
cnrry  ^ut  thes"  ideas, 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  don't  know  of  any  way  that  you 
can  permanently  fix  the  membership  of  the  House  under  the 
town  system.  If  the  gentleman  from  Keene  knows  of  any  such 
way,  he  is  in  duty  bound  to  explain  it  to  this  Committee. 
After  t*he  district  system  was  defeated  in  the  last  Convention, 
I  cooperated  with  my  colleague  from  Ward  4,  Mr.  Mitchell,  in 
formulating  the  plan  for  reducing  the  House  under  the  town 


321:     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

system  that  was  submitted  to  the  people.  It  was  as' fair  a  plan 
as  could  have  been  presented  by  that  Convention.  It  did  not 
change  the  present  ratio  between  the  towns  and  cities.  It 
was  defeated  at  the  polls.  Therefore,  when  some  gentleman 
proposed  to  refer  this  whole  question  to  the  Committee  of 
which  I  am  a  member,  with  the  recommendation  that  that 
Committee  submit  a  plan  which,  in  its  judgment,  the  Commit- 
tee thought  the  Convention  would  adopt  and  the  people  ratify, 
I  doubted  the  wisdom  of  the  suggestion. 

I  believe  that  the  proposition  to  reduce  this  House  50  or  75 
members,  under  the  town  system,  is  merely  patchwork.  To 
my  mind,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  we  have  350  or  400 
members.  If  you  are  going  to  have  the  town  system,  as  you 
have  concluded  to  have,  and  to  that  decision  I  bow,  you  can 
deal  with  this  question  better  in  the  future  by  leaving  the 
matter  where  it  is  today.  The  number  of  representatives  was 
increased  by  the  last  census  only  15.  The  increase  in  the  next 
ten  years  is  not  likely  to  be  any  greater. 

If  we  had  the  data,  I  would  have  presented  to  this  Con- 
vention a  district  system  amendment,  based  upon  actual  voters 
upon  the  checklist.  I  prepared  a  tentative  plan  on  the  votes 
cast  at  the  last  election,  using  150  votes  as  the  number  re- 
quired for  the  first  representative,  and  then  increasing  it  by 
350  votes  for  each  succeeding  representative.  I  saw  where 
it  was  possible  to  limit  the  House  to  about  325  members,  and 
that  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  change  a  single  town  or 
ward  line  to  make  districts,  except  in  the  case  of  towns  fall- 
ing below  600  inhabitants  or  150  votes.  This  plan  was  predi- 
cated on  the  votes  actually  east.  The  whole  number  of  voters 
on  the  checklist  might  make  it  necessary  to  change  the  ratio 
slightly.  I  believe  that,  if  we  had  the  data,  a  district  system 
could  be  prepared,  fixing  the  number  beyond  which  we  would 
not  go,  and  that  it  would  be  possible  to  preserve  the  autonomy 
of  all  but  the  very  small  towns.  Until  we  have  such  data,  I 
think  the  best  thing  we  can  do  is  to  leave  the  House  at  its 
present  number. 

Mr.  Smyth  of  Berlin.— Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Haverhill,  Mr.  Whitcher,  if  his  motion  is  to 
place  the  entire  representation  as  it  is?  Does  his  motion  re- 
late to  the  Senate?  The  reason  I  ask  is,  there  are  some  reso- 
lutions relating  lo  the  increase  of  the  Senate.  Does  your 
resolution  relate  to  the  House  only? 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — My  motion  relates  to  the  House 
only.  I  suppose  the  matter  of  increasing  the  Senate  or  de- 
creasing the  Senate  wil  come  up  later  in  another  form. 


Tuesday,  June  1«,  li^l2.  325 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — I  am  very  sorry  that  this  motion  has 
been  made,  and  that  it  seems  to  be  favored  by  some  men  of 
most  excellent  judgment.  I  think  that  it  will  be  hardly  safe 
for  us  to  go  back  home  if  we  do  not  try  to  do,  something.  It 
does  not  seem  as  though  we  had  really  tried  to  see  whot  we 
could  do  on  this  matter  of  representation.  It  was  the  one 
thing  which,  personally,  I  heard  talked  more  than  all  else  as 
a  reason  for  calling  this  Convention.  The  people  are  not  dis- 
satisfied with  our  system,  but  they  think  the  House  is  too 
large,  and  that  we  ought  to  make  some  arrangement  to  cut 
it  down,  and  save  expense  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
If  we  cut  it  down  100,  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  would  save 
something  like  $20,000, — no  small  item  in  our  budget.  Now,  it 
doesn't  seem  to  me  that  we  have  really  tried  to  cut  the  House 
down  on  the  line  of  the  town  system.  We  have  decided  most 
emphatically  that  we  do  not  want  to  adopt  the  district  sys- 
tem. Have  we  tried  honestly,  with  our  heads  together,  to  cut 
this  House  down,  and  still  retain  the  town  system?  I  don't 
think,  as  honest  men,  that  we  can  say  we  have.  We  have  con- 
sumed only  a  very  short  time  in  talking  this  matter  over,  and 
I  hope  that  the  motion  offered  by  Mr.  Whitcher  will  not  prevail. 
I  really  think  we  should  be  the  laughing  stock  of  the  people  if 
we  should  come  here,  sit  down  and  talk  a  little  while  about  this 
subject,  vote  we  would  not  have  the  district  system,  and  then 
say  we  guessed  we  would  take  no  action,  but  would  leave  the 
matter  where  it  is. 

The  subject  of  taxation,  which  seems  to  be  under  way  of  dis- 
position in  a  manner  quite  satisfactory,  wasn't  talked  about 
prior  to  this  Convention  nearly  as  much,  so  it  seems  to  me,  as 
the  one  involved  in  the  pending  motion. 

This  Convention  will  cost  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  quite 
a  lot  of  money,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to  throw  out 
to  the  voters  of  the  state  an  opportunity  to  say  whether  or 
not  they  will  accept  some  modification  of  our  present  system. 
Now,  do  you  not  think  it  is  reasonable  that  we  should  do  some 
such  thing?  I  have  an  idea  that  this  Convention  will  pass 
some  such  resolution  as  the  one  I  have  suggested.  I  do  not 
know  just  where  the  lines  will  be  drawn,  but  if  we  can  pass 
the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Boynton,  that  we  have  a  town 
representative  system,  and  with  a  House  of  approximately  300 
members,  then  we  could  refer  the  matter  to  a  Committee,  giv- 
ing it  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to  report.  When  the  report 
is  made,  we  can  then  consider  the  subject-matter  to  better 
advantage.     I   am    opposed   to    this   quick   manner    of    brushing 


32t5      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  matter  aside.     I  don't  really  think  it  is  becomiag  to  us  as 
delegates.     I  hope  this  motion  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  HaverJiilL — Just  a  word  in  favor  of  my  motion. 
In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  a  demand  on 
the  part  of  the  people  of  the  state  for  a  smaller  House.  I  find 
myself  in  perfect  accord  with  the  gentleman  from  Landaff, 
that  a  large  House  is  a  benefit  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
I  don't  care  what  other  states  may  say  about  us,  a  large  House 
is  a  benefit  to  New  Hampshire.  We  vote  money  here  at  every 
session  of  the  legislature  to  promote  the  cause  of  education. 
I  believe  that  the  influence  of  a  large  House  is  an  educational 
influence,  that  it  is  simply  invaluable,  making  far  more  intelli- 
gent citizenship  throughout  the  state.  I  don't  believe.  Sir, 
that  a  man  can  be  a  member  of  this  House  for  three  months 
and  go  home  without  a  better  understanding  of  the  institutions 
of  the  state,  without  becoming  a  better  citizen  and  a  better 
influence  for  good  citizenship  in  the  community  where  he  lives, 
whether  it  be  Manchester  or  whether  it  be  my  native  town  of 
Benton,  with  about  220  population.  The  value  of  that  is 
simply  incalculable  and  is  not  to  be  placed  against  the  paltry 
$20,000,  which  the  gentleman  from  Newport  says  we  might 
save.  Furthermore,  I  do  not  believe,  Sir,  that  we  want  to 
cling  too  steadfastly  to  what  we  call  a  town  system.  There 
are  towns  in  this  state  which  never  should  have  been  towns. 
There  are  towns  in  this  state,  chartered  by  Benning  Went- 
worth,  with  no  knowledge  of  what  he  was  chartering;  small 
towns,  where  the  population  is,  some  of  it,  in  one  little  corner 
and  some  in  another  little  corner,  and  the  corners  miles  apart. 
I  don't  believe  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  get  frightened  by  the 
bug-a-boo  that  we  must  preserve  that  small  town  system.  I 
don't  believe  we  are  in  any  position.  Sir,  to  go  ahead  and  at- 
tempt to  reduce  the  House  to  an  unfair  extent  to  the  people 
of  the  large  towns.  It  is  unfair  now;  I  don't  believe  we  want 
to  make  it  any  more  unfair.  We  live  in  a  time  when  we  work 
for  "fair  play  and  the  square  deal,"  and  for  the  people  to  have 
equality  of  voice.  We  -don't  want  to  take  rights  and  privileges 
away  from  the  people  that  they  already  have. 

I  hope  the  motion  I  have  made  will  prevail  and  that  we  drop 
this  matter,^  and  devote  our  time  to  some  other  matters  that 
are  coming  before  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — Ten  years  ago  I  was  making  the  same 
speech  that  has  been  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill, 
and  now  I  am  pleased  to  see  that  he  has  adopted  my  views.  I 
couldn't  express  it  any  more  forcibly  than  he  has.  I  endorse 
his  speech  most  heartily,  and  I  trust  his  ideas  will  prevail  in 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  327 

this  Convention.  As  I  said  awhile  ago,  we  spent  a  long  time 
ten  years  ago  trying  to  reduce  the  size  of  the  House.  I  can- 
not see,  Mr.  Chairman,  what  advantage  it  is  to  the  state  to 
have  twenty-five  less  men  in  the  House  of  Representatives  than 
we  are  to  have  under  the  present  system.  Certainly  you  cannot 
point  to  bad  legislation  that  has  come  from  this  large  House. 
The  legislation  from  the  legislature  here  in  New  Hampshire 
compares  favorably  with  any  other  state  in  this  Union,  and  I 
make  that  statement  without  fear  of  contradiction  from  anyon«\ 
I  hope  that  the  sentiment  expressed  by  the  learned  gentleman 
from  Haverhill  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Neivell  of  Surry. — I  must  confess  I  am  in  the  same  predica- 
ment as  the  gentleman  from  Newport.  It  was  expected  of  me 
when  I  came  here  that  I  should  labor  for  the  reduction  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  what  shall  I  say  when  this 
Convention  puts  the  matter  aside,  and  says  it  cannot  agree 
upon  anything? 

I  do  not  know  how  it  is  in  the  part  of  the  state  where  the 
gentleman  from  Haverhill  resides;  but  I  know  that  in  my 
section  there  is  a  demand  for  a  reduction  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, and  since  I  came  here  I  have  labored  for  that 
purpose.  I  hope  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Haverhill  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Rmoe  of  Kensington. — There  will  be  a  demand  for  a  re- 
duction of  our  pay  if  we  keep  on  talking  about  a  matter  that 
has  taken  fully  one  day  of  our  time.  After  remarks  coming 
from  such  gentlemen  as  have  spoken  here,  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  and  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill,  and  several  others, 
I  should  think  we  might  get  down  to  business  and  vote  on  this 
proposition.  Although  they  have  been  in  favor  of  a  district 
system,  they  have  very  gracefully  accepted  the  resolution  we 
voted  on  a  little  while  ago,  and  now  are  willing  to  have  us 
vote  on  this  one.  I  hope  the  motion  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Haverhill  will  go  through. 

Mr  Madden  of  Keene. — The  gentlemen  are  very  magnanimous 
from  the  large  towns  and  cities  when  they  find  they  cannot 
have  everything  their  own  way.  The  gentlemen  say,  when  they 
•  find  they  cannot  carry  out  their  schemes,  we  will  have  no 
scheme  whatever.  That  may  be  wise.  As  stated  by  the  gen- 
tlemen from  Newport  and  Surry,  I  think  the  only  object  of  this 
Convention  was  to  reduce  the  House,  and  if  this  motion  does 
go  through,  and  if  the  Convention  adopts  this  recommenda- 
tion, I  think  that  I  shall  then  feel  justified,  and  shall  move 
that  the  Convention  adjourn  forthwith,  and  I  give  notice  that 
I  shall  make  that  motion. 


328     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convkntion. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Ja1frey.—\\e  have  before  this  Convention  at  the 
present  time  two  broad  propositions,  one  to  decrease  the  size 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  another  to  increase  the  size 
of  the  Senate.  Now,  I  wish  to  make  a  suggestion,  although  I 
won't  offer  it  in  the  form  of  a  motion:  that  is,  that  we  l<ill 
two  birds  with  one  stone,  we  reduce  the  size  of  the  House, 
say  fourteen  or  sixteen,  and  add  that  number  to  the  size  of 
the  Senate,  and  adjourn,  thereby  settling  the  whole  question, 
spending  no  money  that  belongs  to  the  state  more  than  we 
have  in  the  past  for  legislation,  and  retain  the  educational 
value. 

Mr.  Wason  of  NmJma. — After  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill 
had  made  his  speech,  which  was  very  entertaining,  had  the 
Chair  recognized  me,  I  should  have  liked  to  have  asked  him  a 
question  while  his  speech  was  fresh  in  your  minds.  Not  being 
able  to  do  that,  with  the  gentleman's  permission  and  the 
Chair's,  I  would  like  to  ask  him  now:  How  many  legislatures 
has  he  been  a  member  of  prior  to  this  Convention? 

The  Chairman. — The  gentleman  from  Haverhill  is  permitted 
to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  HaverJiiU. — That  is  a  mere  matter  of  history. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nash/im. — I  expected  it  had  no  significance. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Havo-hill.—l  think  the  gentleman  knows,  but 
for  his  information,  and  to  dispense  with  his  ignorance,  I  will 
say  that  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  legislature  five  times. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. — Now%  I  think  in  view  of  his  argument, 
I  think  we  could  all  discover  what  kind  of  a  legislator  he  must 
have  been  at  his  first  appearance.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gen- 
tlemen, I  haven't  wearied  you  on  this  subject  of  representation, 
yet  I  feel  as  the  gentleman  from  Newport  and  the  gentleman 
from  Surry  do  on  the  matter.  I  heard  this  matter  discussed 
ten  years  ago,  and  took  part  in  it.  I  voted  then  to  preserve  the 
town  system,  and  I  voted  today  to  preserve  the  town  system. 
And,  while  the  district  system  has  merit,  if  you  are  going  to 
make  population  your  basis,  yet  there  is.  merit  in  the  town 
.  system  that  has  been  in  existence  in  this  state  for  128  years, 
and,  notwithstanding  remarks  and  allusions  that  have  been 
made  by  the  gentlemen  on  the  floor.  I  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Exeter,  that  the  legislation  as  enacted  by  the  House 
of  Representatives  in  the  good  old  state  of  New  Hampshire  will 
compare  favorably  wuth  that  of  any  other  state  in  the  Union. 
I  can  go  him  one  better.  I  will  say  it  will  lead  the  list.  We 
are  here  for  a  purpose,  and  primarily  it  is  the  matter  of  de- 
creasing,   and    formulating    a    plan    for    the    future    as    to    the 


TcjESDAV,  June  18,  1912.  329 

size  of  our  legislature.  We  have,  under  the  new  census,  or  will 
have,  a  House  rising-  400  members.  I  think  it  will  probably 
be  409  with  the  pro  rata  towns,  a  body  which  is  large  in  num- 
ber and  large  in  abilty,  and,  as  has  been  suggested,  couldn't 
we  lose  a  few  and  still  save  the  treasury  a  little  money  and 
get  just  as  good  legislation  as  we  have  been  getting  in  the 
years  gone  by?  We  have  had  a  membership  of  ;^00,  HSO.  P.C^O  and 
390,  and  now  it  will  exceed  400.  Cannot  we  reduce  it?  After 
we  have  talked  this  matter  over,  and  thought  it  over,  and  dis- 
cussed it,  cannot  we  submit  a  proposition  to  the  people  that 
they  will  ratify?  Why,  some  member  of  this  Convention  shakes 
his  head,  and  he  does  it  because  the  people  did  not  ratify  the 
report  of  this  Convention  ten  years  ago.  Yet  they  came  ap- 
proximately within  2,000  votes  of  ratifying  the  proposition  sub- 
mitted to  them.  That  proposition  was  800  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative, which  affected  a  number  of  towns.  We  have  a 
proposition  here  that  does  not  affect  the  towns,  except  large 
towns,  and  if  it  came  within  2,000  votes,  or  a  little  rising  2,000 — 
the  vote  being  20,000  in  favor  and  13,000  against — if  we  do  not 
rob  the  little  towns  with  less  than  600,  or  the  towns  with  more 
than  600  population,  can't  we  get  that  proposition  ratified  by 
the  people?  Let  us  try  it.  That  proposition  raised  the  basis 
and  classed  30  or  40  towns  in  New  Hampshire  which  had  a 
population  between  600  and  800.  Now,  then,  without  going  into 
the  merits  of  the  system,  or  discussing  the  Winch  resolution,  so 
called,  which  gives  every  town  one,  and  every  ward  one,  or 
the  Pattee  resolution,  which  gives  every  town  with  600  one, 
and  every  town  with  2,400  additional  population,  or  3,000,  for 
the  second  representative,  wouldn't  every  town  vote  in  favor 
of  the  latter,  and  wouldn't  the  town  of  Haverhill,  which  my 
friend  Whitcher  represents,  vote  for  it?  Wouldn't  the  town  of 
Newport,  which  my  friend  Barton  represents  in  this  Convention, 
vote  for  it,  and  wouldn't  we  give  to  the  people  what  they  would 
consider  fair,  and  wouldn't  they  consider  it  favorably?  I  say  it 
is  not  a  proper  thing  for  this  Convention  to  do  at  this  time  to 
report  we  cannot  agree  when  we  have  not  tried  to  agree.  Why, 
the  gentleman  from  Haverhill,  or  the  gentleman  from  Concord, 
or  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  or  the  gentleman  from  some 
other  place  may  not  agree  with  me,  but  if  we  sit  down  hon- 
estly and  fairly  and  good-naturedly,  and  talk  the  proposition 
over,  we  shall  come  pretty  near  compromising  and  agreeing  be- 
fore we  get  through.  We  Jiave  here  in  this  Convention  as 
reasonable  men  as  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill  and  myself, 
or  the  others  I  have  named,  and,  when   we   go   at  the  matter 


3B0     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

carefullj'^  and  candidly  and  -deliberately,  we  can  arrive  at  a 
conclusion  that  we  are  not  ashamed  to  send  to  the  voters  of 
New  Hampshire  for  ratification.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope  this 
Convention  will  not  vote  for  the  motion  to  indefinitely  postpone 
the  matter  until  we  have  honestly,  fairly  and  squarely  met  this 
question  before  this  Convention  as  men,  and  acted  upon  it. 

Mr.  Booth  of  Goshen. — This  is  the  greatest  tribute  to  woman's 
sutt'rage  of  anything  we  have  had  yet.  I  think  the  women  will 
become  disgusted  with  the  actions  here.  Now,  it  looks  to  me. 
as  though  we  can  just  as  well  come  together  and  vote  on  this 
and  settle  the  matter  one  way  or  the  other.  I  don't  care  which 
way  you  settle  it,  but  give  every  town  a  chance  to  vote,  and 
as  much  more  as  you  can  afford. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  54  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  206  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion  did 
not  prevail. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Morse  of 
Newmarket  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth, 
to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Boynton  of  Ports- 
mouth to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  — 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  withdrew  his  amendment. 
Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene, — 

Mr.  Towle  of  Northwood  moved  to  amend  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  by  striking  out  all  of  the  motion  begin- 
ning with  the  words  "based  upon  the  town  system,"  and  in- 
serting in  place  thereof  "embodying  Resolution  No.  22,  Relat- 
ing to  the  House  of  Representatives." 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Towle  of  North- 
wood, — 

• 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Towle  of  Notthwood  by  substituting  in  place 
thereof  the  words  "based  upon  the  town  system,  and  that  the 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  331 

number  requisite  for  the  first  representative  shall  be  600  in- 
habitants and  that  the  total  number  of  representatives  shall 
not  exceed  approximately  300/' 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua 
to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Towle  of  Northwood  to  the  motio'n 
of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene, — 

Mr.  ToAvle  of  Northwood  accepted  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Wason  of  Nashua. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Towle  of  Northwood 
to  amend  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene, — 

Mr.  Batchelder  of  Portsmouth. — In  the  interest  of  clearness  1 
would  like  to  ask  how  many  towns  and  wards  there  are  now 
in  the  state;  if  there  are  not  now  practically  300,  so  that  this 
results  in  practically  one  representative  for  each  town  and 
ward? 

TJie  Chairman. — The  Chair  will  state,  for  the  information  ot 
the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth,  that  he  will  find  a  table  *^n 
Page  3  of  Resolution  No.  22  which  will  give  him  the  informa- 
tion he  desires. 

Mr.  Winch  of  Lamjdf  n. — The  question  has  been  asked  here,  how 
many  representatives  the  town  and  ward  system  would  have. 
There  are  just  290;  that  is  just  the  number  there  would  be.  If 
you  want  to  make  a  House  of  that  number,  and  give  every 
town  and  ward  one,  that  is  about  the  only  way  you  can  get 
at  it.  If  you  want  to  increase  the  House  to  any  other  extent, 
then  you  can  come  at  it  in  a  little  different  way. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester. — I  want  to  say  just  a  word,  and 
that  is  that  I  think  there  is  quite  a  different  element  of  fair- 
ness between  the  motion  and  the  amendment.  That  is,  the 
motion  on  the  part  of  the  genlemari  from  Keene  simply  limits 
the  maximum  number,  without  any  reference  to  the  number 
required  for  the  first  representative,  while  the  amendment  is  in 
effect  a  motion  to  adopt  here  as  our  recommendation. the  reso- 
lution known  as  the  Pattee  resolution.  Now,  for  fear  that 
because  it  is  introduced  by  somebody  from  Manchester  it  ma^' 
be  assumed  that  it  is  Manchester's  bill,  I  thought  I  would  say 
a  word,  speaking  for  m5'self  alone.  I  believe  we  should  not 
tie  this  Committee  down  to  any  minimum  number,  that  is,  to 
600,  and  I  have  in  mind  in  saying  that  the  fact  that,  after  the 
discussion  held  here  ten  years  ago,  which  was  a  very  complete 


332     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

one,  a  different  number  was  agreed  on  and  submitted,  and  that 
is  the  plan  which  has  been  referred  to  here  as  coming  so  near 
being  adopted  by  the  people,  and  because  of  that  fact  was 
probably  as  favorable  a  one  as  might  be  agreed  to  at  this  time. 
I  wish  to  state  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  either  of 
these  motions  shall  prevail,  the  original  motion  should.  It  is 
rather  elastic;  it  says  the  number  shall  not  exceed  a  certain 
limit,  350,  while  the  other  is  simply  an  attempt  to  get  in  one 
of  these  resolutions  binding  the  Committee  to  a  minimum  num- 
ber, and  I  trust  the  amendment  will  be  defeated. 

Mr.  Neicell  of  Surry. — It  seems  to  me  that  we  should  not  tie 
the  hands  of  the  Legislative  Committee  by  fixing  the  basis  for 
the  first  representative  at  600.  You  all  know  I  have  introduced 
a  resolution  making  the  basis  for  the  first  representative  800, 
and  2,000  for  each  additional.  Isn't  it  fair  that  these  several 
propositions  should  be  considered  by  this  Legislative  Commit- 
tee without  their  hands  being  tied? 

Mr.  Madden  of  Eeene. — The  resolution  I  have  introduced  pro- 
vides that  each  town  and  city  shall  have  one,  and  each  city 
and  town  of  over  5,000  inhabitants  shall  have  the  other  88  divided 
among  them.  Xow,  no  matter  how  you  tie  the  Committee 
down,  I  intend  to  have  something  to  say  before  that  Com- 
mittee and  also  to  the  Convention  when  that  matter  comes  uj), 
and  I  would  suggest  that  the  members  of  this  Committee  and 
the  Convention  study  over  the  resolution  which  I  introduced, 
No.  18. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — I  desire  to  call  attention  to  this  plan 
submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Keene,  Mr.  Madden.  I  do 
not  believe  it  will  take  this  Convention  of  fair-minded  mea 
lon^  to  decide  to  throw  the  Madden  resolution  into  the  waste- 
basket.  Let  me  tell  you  why,  for  illustration.  Under  this 
plan,  small  towns,  like  Temple,  for  instance,  though  good  towns, 
but  having  only  about  300  population,  have  one  representative 
each,  while  towns  like  Littleton,  Lancaster,  Newport  and  Mil- 
ford,  with  about  4,000  inhabitants,  have  only  one  representative 
each,  and  then,  on  the  other  hand,  the  city  of  Somersworth, 
with  about  6,000  population,  is  given  eight  representatives. 
That  is,  a  vote  in  one  town  is  a  vote,  and  in  another  town  or 
city  it  is  four  or  five  or  six  or  seven  votes.  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  very  hard  question.  I  sympathize 
with  the  towns,  the  small  towns,  on  this  question.  I  was  born 
in  a  small  town  and  I  like  the  ]jeople  of  our  small  towns;  but 
I  hope  you  will  not  over-jump  the  bounds  of  reason  and  fair- 
ness in  this  matter,  but  bear  in  mind  what  is  fair  and  honest 


Tuesday,  June  18,  191_\  333 

between  man  and  man,  and  town  and  town,  and  town  and  city. 

i  insist  that,  by  theory  at  least,  I  am  entitled  to  as  much 
part  in  the  vote  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  whether  I  live 
in  Milford  or  Temple  or  Hart's  Location,  and  that  my  vote 
ought  to  count  about  the  same  in  whichever  place  I  live.  There 
are  present  conditions  we  must  consider,  however.  As  we  have 
voted  against  the  district  system,  let  us  make  a  reduction,  if 
possible,  by  the  town  system,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Cavanaugh,  submit  the 
most  reasonable  proposition, — town  and  city  must  both  concede, 
we  must  both  give  up,  and  let  us  make  the  population  of  800 
the  basis  for  the  tlrst  representative  and  twice  that  population 
for  each  additional  member.  That  is  the  proportion  that  has 
been  required  for  the  second  representative,  and  so  on  for  ad- 
ditional members,  ever  since  tliis  Constitution  was  founded, 
ever  since  the  state  was  organized,  and  if  this  Constitution  is 
so  good,  as  so  often  has  been  said  here,  the  state  having  existed 
under  it  for  120  j^ears  successfully,  let  us  not  depart  farther 
from  the  element  of  fairness  and  proportion  and  equality  re- 
quired for  the  second  member  than  under  the  Constitution  of 
our  fathers. 

I  do  not  like  to  speak  upon  this  subject.  Our  sympathies  are 
one  way,  and  what  we  believe  to  be  right  and  fair  and  equal  is 
somewhat  different,  but  I  do  not  believe  in  making  this  inequal- 
ity any  greater  than  it  now  is.  I  hope  the  resolution  presented 
by  the  gentleman  from  Keene,  Mr.  Madden,  will  be  looked  over. 
That  is  all  I  ask  of  a  Convention  like  this. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene. — Let  me  explain  to  the  gentleman  from 
Milford  that  the  reason  Somersworth  has  five  or  six  repre- 
sentatives, is  because  Somersworth  has  five  or  six  wards,  and 
Milford  is  only  one  organization. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warren. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  am  speaking  upon  this  question  simply  in  the 
interest  of  absolute  fairness  and  what  seems  to  me  absolute 
openness.  Now,  this  resolution,  No.  22,  introduced  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Manchester,  is,  from  my  standpoint,  eminently  fair 
on  the  face  of  it,  but  someone  asked  me  to  speak  upon  that 
question.  Knowing  the  source  from  which  it  came,  knowing 
the  source  of  the  resolution,  it  struck  me  as  rather  strange, 
Gentlemen,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  direct  effect  of  No.  22 
will  be  to  give  the  towns,  the  small  towns,  their  full  representa- 
tion. But  it  seems  to  be  aimed  directly  at  the  labor  organiza- 
tions in  the  big  cities  an  attempt  to  deprive  them  of  their  voice 
in  state  affairs,  where  they  can  take  legal  action,  and  thence 


334     Journal  of  Constitutional  Conventjon. 

drive  them  into  illegal  action.  Now,  I  may  be  wrong,  but  it 
strikes  me  that  way. 

Mr.  Goss  of  Berlin. — As  I  understand  this  proposition,  it  is  to 
continue  the  town  system,  and  to  cut  down  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives at  the  expense  of  the  cities.  I  think  we  might 
just  as  well  look  the  proposition  squarely  in  the  face.  In  order 
to  accomplish  anything,  we  shall  have  to  submit  a  proposition 
which  will  be  acceptable  to  the  cities,  because,  before  it  be- 
comes a  part  of  the  Constitution,  it  will  have  to  receive  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  people,  and  it  will  have  to  get  that  two-thirds 
vote  largely  from  the  cities.  Now,  then,  gentlemen  say  that 
they  don't  want  to  go  home  and  say  that  they  have  done  noth- 
ing to  cut  down  the  representation  of  the  House.  I  don't  wanf 
to  go  back  to  the  city  of  Berlin  and  say  I  was  in  favor  of  taking 
away  from  my  own  constituents  the  right  to  be  represented 
in  our  legislature,  and  of  giving  it  to  those  who  already  have. 
more  than  a  proportionate  share  of  representation  in  the  Houst*. 

Mr.  Fifield  of  Conway. — Mr.  Chairman,  these  gentlemen  seem 
to  have  turned  the  trick  by  supposing  that  we  are  all  in  favor 
of  cutting  down  the  House.  Now,  Gentlemen,  I  maintain  that 
there  is  a  strong  sentiment  here  in  favor  of  retaining  its  pres- 
ent number.  We  have  voted  not  to  recommend  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  for  the  reason  that  the  House  is  so  large  and 
the  ^people  so  well  represented  that  we  can  take  care  of  these 
things  by  our  representatives.  Now,  Gentlemen,  if  we  are 
going  to  assume  that,  what  is  the  object  in  trying  to  cut  down 
the  House?  Why  not  let  it  stand  at  its  present  number,  with 
good  representation  from  all  parts  of  the  state? 

Mr.  Hoyt  of  Madison. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  felt 
pretty  safe,  as  a  representative  from  a  country  town,  when  ths 
motion  went  through  here  to  continue  the  town  system  of 
representation,  and  now  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  wandered 
away  from  it.  We  have  wandered  away  from  that  very  ground- 
work on  which  the  town  representation  rests,  that  each  town 
has  a  representative.  Now,  we  are  really  getting  into  a  poor 
form  of  the  district  system  of  representation  if  we  abandon  600 
population  as  the  basis  for  the  first  representative.  We  are 
simply  getting  into  a  very  poor  form  of  district  representation. 
Now,  in  these  little  country  towns  the  villages  are  four  miles 
apart  and  five  miles  apart  and  ten  miles  apart,  and  my  oppo- 
sition to  the  district  system  has  been  because  you  practically 
disenfranchise  a  good  part  of  the  people  there.  It  costs  so 
much  time  and  money  to  go  to  the  voting-places  that  voters 
won't   go,   under  a    district   system.     One   town   is   united   with 


Tuesday,  June  18,  1912.  335 

another  town  and  you  have  got  to  go,  perhaps,  across  a  moun- 
tain range.  It  seems  to  me  the  real  question  of  representa- 
tion is,  not  the  number  of  people,  but  does  every  citizen  in  the 
state  have  an  opportunity  to  express  his  preference  for  a  rep- 
resentative and  instruct  that  representative  as  to  his  policy? 
Under  the  system  that  you  will  adopt  here  if  you  abandon  600 
as  the  number  required  for  the  first  representative,  or  adopt 
the  district  system,  you  will  practically  do  that  thing,  because 
in  the  little  country  places  they  cannot  go  so  far.  In  the 
cities  you  don't  have  that  objection.  In  a  city  ward,  no  matter 
how  many  people  live  in  it, — and  I  was  born  in  one  of  th>^ 
largest  cities  of  the  United  States'  and  lived  there  twenty 
years, — people  are  not  disenfranchised,  even  if  the  ward  sends 
but  one  member.  They  can  walk  from  one  city  ward  to  an- 
other in  a  few  minutes.  They  have  a  chance  to  choose  their 
representatives,  and  the  very  groundwork  of  our  town  system 
is  to  give  each  town  a  representative.  If  you  don't  do  that, 
you  are  getting  ^into  a  very  poor  form  of  district  representa- 
tion. If  600.  passengers  are  on  a  steamer  in  the  ocean,  they 
need  someone  to  represent  them.  They  need  a  captain.  If 
there  are  3,000  passengers  on  that  steamer,  they  don't  need 
more  than  one  captain.  I  do  not  think  it  is  fair,  or  that  it 
would  be  ]*ust  to  all  the  best  interests  of  the  state,  to  abandon 
600  as  the  basis  for  the  first  representative. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — I  understand  that  all  these  different 
phases  which  are  being  spoken  of  here,  can  be  handled  better 
in  the  Committee.  I  think  it  is  the  best  plan  to  get  this  reso- 
lution out  of  here  and  into  the  Committee.  The  Committee,  I 
assume,  will  take  the  subject  under  advisement,  will  return 
a  majority  and  probably  a  minority  report,  and  then  you  can 
offer  any  amendments  you  desire.  Now,  don't  you  think  iv^ 
are  about  ready  to  send  this  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Madden 
of  Keene  to  the  Convention?  I  hope  that  we  won't  insist  at 
this  time  on  stibking  on  600  or  800  or  any  of  these  details. 
This  is  the  broad  question  of  whether  or  not  we  will  get  to- 
gether on  these  various  resolutions,  iron  them  out  in  a  Com- 
mittee, and  then  come  back  and  see  what  action  the  Convention 
wishes  to  take, 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — If  I  may  interrupt  the  gentleman,  let 
me  ask  him  this  question:  If  the  matter  should  go  before  our 
Committee, — he  and  I  are  members  of  the  same  Committee, — 
would  you  prefer  that  we  have  specific  instructions  as  to  what 
to  do,  or  would  j'ou  prefer  that  we  have  some  latitude?  I  bow 
to  the  will  of  the  Convention  or  of  this  Committee. 


336     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Viewport.— \Ne  want  some  latitude. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Then  make  that  latitude  broad  enough 
so  we  will  have  latitude. 

Mr.  Barton  of  ^^eicport. — I  understand,  under  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Madden,  the  latitude  is  ample;  that  it  was  only  restricted 
by  a  friend  of  a  particular  bill,  and  I  would  like  to  get  away 
from  that  if  I  could,  and  come  back  to  Mr.  Madden's  motion 
by  putting  the  bill  back  into  Convention  and  through  a  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Towle  of  Northwood  withdrew  his  amendment. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Oonteintion. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  whom  was  referred  Eesolution  No.  1,  Eelating  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  13,  Relating  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  14,  Relating  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  15,  Relating  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  18,  Relating  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  22,  Relating  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  26,  Relating  to 
the  Election  of  Representatives  in  Cities  and  Towns  of  less 
thgn  800  Inhabitants,  and  Resolution  No.  35,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  having  considered  the  same,  report 
the  same  with  the  recommendation  that  the  same  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  with  instruc- 
tions to  report  as  soon  as  possible  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution relating  to  the  apportionment  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, based  upon  the  town  system,  and  that  the  num- 
ber of  representatives  do  not  exceed  350. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

.    On  motion  of  Mr.  Lambert  of  Manches-ter  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  4.46  o'clock. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  337 

WEDNESDAY,  June  19,  1912. 
The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  delegate  from  Newfields,  Rev. 
George  E.  Leighton. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun,  — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  De  Gross  of  Bath,  the  further  reading 
was  dispensed  with. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Young  of  Charlestown  was  granted  leave  of  absence 
for  the  afternoon  session,  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Eainville  of  Pembroke  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for 
Thursday  and  Friday,  on  account  of  death  in  the  family. 

Reports  of  Committees. 

Mr.  Donigan  of  Newbury,  for  the  Special  Committee  on 
Woman's  Suffrage,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  7, 
Relating  to  Female  Suffrage,  having  considered  the  same,  re- 
port, as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

MINORITY  REPORT. 

The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Special  Committee  on 
Woman's  Suffrage,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  7, 
Relating  to  Female  Suffrage,  having  considered  the  same,  and 
being  unable  to  agree  with  the  majority,  report  the  same  with 
the  recommendation: 


338      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolved,  That  the  amendment  proposed  by  the' resolution 
be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

WILLIAM  F.  WHITCHER. 
FRANK  P.  HOBBS. 
OSCAR  C.  YOUNG. 
FRED  T.  WADLEIGH. 
JOSEPH  B.  SANBORN. 
ADAM  W.  WIGHT. 
ARTHUR  J.  BOUT^VELL. 
GEORGE  C.  PARSONS. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  moved  that  the  report  of  the 
minority  be  substituted  for  that  of  the  majority,  and  with  that 
motion  pending,  that  the  resolution  lie  on  the  table  and  be 
made  a  special  order  for  Thursday,  June  20,  at  10.32  o'clock. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter  for  the  Committee  on  Future  Mode 
of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed  Amend- 
ments, to  whom  were  referred  Resolution  No.  20,  Relating  to 
the  Election  of  County  Officers,  Resolution  No.  21,  Relating 
to  the  Appointment  of  Solicitors,  Resolution  No.  30,  Relating 
to  County  Officers,  Resolution  No.  40,  Relating  to  County 
Commissioners,  Resolution  No.  41,  Relating  to  the  Register? 
of  Probate,  Resolution  No.  42,  Relating  to  the  Registers  of 
Deeds,  having  considered  the  same,  report  the  same  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed  in  the  several  resolutions. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee, — 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord  moved  that  the  question  be 
divided  so  that  the  Convention  consider  Resolution  No.  30, 
Relating  to  County  Officers,  separately. 

No  objection  being  raised,  the  Chair  ruled  that  the  report 
should  be  divided. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  339 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  all  the  resolutions  incorporated  therein,  except  Res- 
okition  Xo.  30,  Eelating  to  County  Officers, — 

The  report  of  the  Committee  was  adopted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and 
Other  Proposed  Amendments,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolu- 
tion No.  30,  Relating  to  County  Officers,  the  same  being  that 
it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  proposed  in  the 
resolution, — 

Mr.  Allen  Eollis  of  Conoord. — Mr.  President,  the  question  pre- 
sented by  the  report  of  the  Committee  is  whether  the  Consti- 
tution shall  remain  as  it  is,  and  I  will  say  in  that  particular 
that  the  Constitution  now  provides  that  all  county  officials 
shall  be  elected  at  reg-ular  elections.  It  is  a  well-known  fact 
as  to  many  county  officials — as  to  several,  I  will  say,  county 
officials, — that  there  is  no  logical  reason  why  they  should  be 
elected.  Such  officers  as  register  of  probate,  register  of  deeds, 
and  perhaps  some  others,  I  think  everyone  is  agreed  that  the 
appointment  of  such  officials  is  desirable.  As  to  county  com- 
missioners, there  are  many  who  believe  that  they  should  be 
elected,  as  you  might  say,  in  rotation.  It  may  be  that  the 
legislature  can  now  arrange  to  have  them  elected  one  for  six 
years,  and  not  as  is  now  done;  but  on  that  question  there  is 
some  doubt.  Now,  up  to  some  thirty  or  forty  years  ago, — I 
may  have  it  too  long,  thirty  years  ago, — the  legislature  did  have 
power  to  say  whom  should  be  elected  and  whom  might  be  ap- 
pointed. An  amendment  was  adopted  at  that  time  and  has  since 
been  in  force.  It  is  not  my  desire  to  take  up  much  time  on 
this  proposition,  and  I  simply  have  asked  to  have  this  separated, 
so  a  division  might  be  had,  and  we  might  get  the  sense  of  this 
meeting  as  to  whether  the  legislature  may  deal  with  this  ques- 
tion of  the  election  or  appointment  of  such  county  officials, 
electing  those  whom  they  think  should  be  elected,  and  having 
those  appointed  whom  they  think  should  be  appointed.  I  think 
the  vote  might  as  well  be  taken  directly  on  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  in  which  event  those  who  think  the  legislature 
should  have  the  opportunity  to  decide  this  question  will  vote 
no,  and  those  who  do  not  will  vote  yes.  I  would  say  that  I 
think  several  members  of  that  Committee  were  not  in  favor 
of  this  report. 


340    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  don't  comQ  here  for 
the  purpose  of  opposing  what  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman 
who  has  just  preceded  me,  but,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
making  this  report,  perhaps  a  word  is  due  from  me  in  regard 
to  it.  The  subjects  which  are  contained  in  these  various  pro- 
posed amendments  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee, and  we  had  three  hearings  in  regard  to  it.  Now,  there 
was  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Committee  in  regard  to  some 
of  the  officials.  There  were  some  members  of  the  Committee 
who  thought  that  perhaps  it  would  be  wise  to  have  the  so- 
licitor appointed  by  the  Superior  Court,  but,  after  consider- 
ing the  matter,  and  after  conference  with  persons  who  arc 
supposed  to  have  some  knowledge  in  regard  to  these  sub- 
jects, especially  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of  registers  of 
probate,  we  reached  the  conclusion  which  is  embodied  in  the 
report  of  the  Committee.  Now,  then,  so  far  as  the  election  of 
various  officials  is  left  to  the  legislature,  it 'is  my  opinion  that 
the  terms  of  the  county  commissioners  may  be  determined  by 
the  legislature  under  existing  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 
When  there  was  objection  made  to  the  change  proposed  in  re- 
gard to  county  commissioners,  which  provided  they  should 
hold  terms  of  two,  four  and  six  years,  respectively,  and  on«3 
should  retire  at  the  end  of  each  two  years,  it  was  suggested 
that  six  years  was  a  good  while  to  have  one  man  in  the  office, 
if  you  didn't  get  a  first-rate  man;  if  you  have  a  first-rate  man, 
and  want  to  keep  him  six  years,  it  is  open  to  the  people  to  se- 
lect that  man,  and  maintain  him  in  office  as  long  as  they  sec 
fit.  Another  thing  about  it,  this  matter  in  regard  to  these  of- 
ficials was  changed  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  in 
1876, — you  can  figure  out  how  long  ago  that  was.  Prior  to  that 
time  these  officers  were  appointed,  with  the  exception  of  reg- 
isters of  Deeds,  but  in  1876  it  was  suggested  that  these  officials 
ought  to  be  elected  by  the  people;  the  people  ought  to  "Bave 
more  direct  control  over  them  than  they  had  under  the  Con- 
stitution as  it  then  existed.  And  the  change  was  made.  Now 
the  proposition  comes  to  change  the  Constitution,  substantially. 
back  to  the  same  position  that  it  was  in  at  the  time  when  that 
amendment  was  made,  so,  in  view  of  the  situation  to'day,  this 
Committee  reached  the  conclusion  which  is  embodied  in  our 
report.  I,  for  one,  am  not  in  favor  of  changing  the  Constitu- 
tion too  often.  Under  existing  conditions,  the  present  method 
has  worked  very  well,  and  I  think  that  seems  to  be  the  gen- 
eral opinion.  But,  so  far  as  a  change  is  concerned,  I  do  not 
wish  to  influence  the  Convention  one  way  or  the  other.  I  rise 
to  explain  to  you  the  action  of  the  Committee. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  341 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Exeter  if  there  is  any  provision  in  the  Constitution 
that  forbids  the  legislature  from  lengthening  the  terms  of 
county  officers? 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — I  will  say  for  the  information  of  the 
gentleman  that  I  do  not  know  that  there  is.  The  Constitu- 
tion does  not  put  any  limit  on  the  terms  of  the  county  officials. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  do  feel  an  interest  in  this  subject. 
In  regard  to  the  question  of  county  commissioners,  the  sub- 
ject of  lengthening  their  terms  has  been  before  the  legislature 
several  times,  and  we  have  voted  upon  it  with  the  clear  under- 
standing that  we  had  the  right  to  make  that  change.  There- 
fore, as  regards  county  commissioners,  it  seems  to  me  no  con- 
stitutional provision  is  necessary.  In  regard  to  the  registers 
of  probate  and  registers  of  deeds  and  the  county  solicitors, 
in di vidua II3',  I  should  be  glad  to  have  them  appointed  by  the 
Governor  and  Council,  if  that  was  the  desire  of  the  Convention, 
but  we  have  gone  along  with  this  change  in  the  Constitution 
since  1876,  on  the  theory  that  the  people  ought  to  elect  these 
officials.  Now,  then,  it  is  a  fact  in  nearly  all  counties  of  the 
state  that  the  register  of  probate  or  the  register  of  deeds, 
if  he  proves  to  be  an  efficient  man,  is  elected  term  after  term. 
The  two  positions  are  now  regarded  as  non-partisan  positions, 
and  if  you  do  not  desire  to  undertake  to  submit  an  amend- 
ment to  have  these  officers  appointed,  I  do  not  see  why  the 
legislature  itself  could  not  lengthen  the  terms  of  these  two 
officers,  and  have  them  chosen  every  four  or  six  years,  instead 
of  two  years,  and  you  would  accomplish  what  is  sought  here, 
a  continuity  in  their  positions  without  altering  the  Constitu- 
tion. On  the  question  of  appointment  of  the  sheriff  and  so- 
licitor, there  may  be  a  very  strong  difference  of  opinioti  in  re- 
gard to  the  advisability  of  it.  For  my  own  part,  I  should  he 
in  favor  of  returning  to  the  old  system,  but  I  have  no  desire 
to  press  that  view  on  the   Convention. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
was  adopted. 

♦  Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolntion  ISTo.  47,  Relat- 
ing to  the  Initiative  and  Referendnm,  having  considered  the 
same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 


342    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed,  the  subject  matter  of  said  resolution  having 
already  been  acted  on  by  the  Convention. 

MtNORiTY  Report. 

The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Eesolution  Xo.  47, 
Relating  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum,  having  considered 
the  same,  and  being  unable  to  agree  with  the  majority,  report 
the  same  with  the  recommendation  that  tiie  amendment  pro- 
posed in  the  resolution  be  agreed  to. 

ORVILLE  D.  FESSEI^DEN. 

RAYMOND  B.  STEVENS. 

The  reports  were  accepted. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  moved  that  the  report  of  the  minor- 
ity be  substituted  for  that  of  the  majority. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  to  substitute, — 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — Mr.  President  and  Members  of  the 
Convention,  I  would  say  in  considering  Eesolution  No.  47  that 
the  Committee  were  practically  unanimous.  All  the  members 
present,  excepting  the  two  who  signed  the  minority  report, 
favored  the  majority  report.  Eesolution  No.  47  has  some  ad- 
ditional features  in  it  which  were  not  in  the  resolution  con- 
sidered by  the  Convention  last  week, — some  features  which 
seem  to  the  Committee  even  less  desirable  than  the  resolution 
turned  down  last  week.  Now,  for  instance,  this  bill  provides 
for  the  initiative  by  the  people.  A  number  of  voters  equal  to 
eight  percent  of  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  for  Governor 
at  the  last  preceding  state  election  may  initiate  a  bill  which 
must  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  referred  to  the  people 
and  may  become  a  law  without  ever  having  been  before  the 
legislature.  So  it  makes  it  possible  for  bills  to  be  passed  with- 
out ever  having  the  consideration  of  the  representative  body 
of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is 
a  very  important  feature,  and  one  which  should  be  considered 
strongly  against  this  resolution  by  this  Convention,  and  mem- 
bers who  voted  for  the  resolution  last  week  may  properly  vote 
against  the  resolution  as  now  presented,  because  of  this  par- 
ticular feature.    There  are  other  bad  features  which  other  gen- 


Wednesday,  June  19,  9112.  343 

tlemen  will  discuss.  1  hoije  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Jattrey  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  President,  it  seems  rather  strange 
to  me  to  hear  a  gentleman,  who  voted  against  the  proposition 
last  week,  advocating  that  this  proposition  is  less  desirable 
to  him  than  the  one  advocated  last  week.  This  proposition, 
Eesolution  No.  47,  is  practically  an  exact  copy  of  the  Oregon 
plan  for  the  initiative  and  referendum,  and  I  agree  with  the 
gentleman  that  it  is  not  so  desirable  to  those  who  believe  in 
the  initiative  and  referendum  as  the  proposition  submitted  last 
week,  being  more  conservative  and  requiring  more  signatures 
to  a  petition.  Resolution  No.  4,  considered  last  week,  required 
4,000  signatures  to  a  petition  for  the  referendum  on  measures 
passed,  or  rejected  by  the  legislature.  Resolution  No.  47  re- 
quires five  percent  of  the  voters  for  the  referendum,  which 
means  4,600  or  4,700,  and  for  the  initiative  8  percent,  which, 
based  on  the  vote  for  Governor  in  the  last  election,  is  nearly 
7,000  voters.  -  I  claim  that  Resolution  No.  47  is  more  conserva- 
tive than  Resolution  No.  4  in  th'at  it  is  more  difficult  to  get 
matters  before  the  people.  No  one  in  this  Convention  sup- 
poses that  anj'  one  is  going  to  the  trouble  of  getting  7,000 
signers  to  an  initiative  petition  until  they  have  given  the  legis- 
lature a  chance  to  pass  some  such  law,  without  the  necessity 
of  going  to  the  labor  of  getting  signers  to  a  petition. 

Now,  as  to  the  number  of  signers  on  the  petition.  You  re- 
member at  one  of  the  hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Equal 
Suffrage  last  week,  that  ladies  were  present  to  show  that  they 
had  succeeded  in  getting  a  little  over  7,000  signers  to  a  pe- 
tition. Every  one  of  the  members  ^of  this  Convention  knows 
what  a  tremendous  amount  of  labor  was  incurred  in  getting 
7,173  signers  to  a  petition  favoring  equal  suffrage.  Now,  th<; 
number  of  measures  which  will  come  before  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire  under  the  initiative  is  limited,  if  you  require 
7,000  signatures  to  a  bill  before  it  can  go  to  the  people.  Those 
who  advocate  the  initiative  and  referendum  are  accused  of 
not  trusting  the  legislature.  We  do  trust  the  legislature.  We 
realize  that  representative  government  under  legislative 
methods  is  the  only  system  that  will  ever  succeed  in  so  large 
a  community  as  this  state.  We  wish,  that  the  legislature  might 
hear  sometimes  a  little  better.  Two  little  boys  were  going 
to  bed  just  before  Christmas.  One  knelt  and  prayed  to  the 
Lord  for  the  presents  he  wanted.  His  little  brother  said, 
"Johnny,  what  makes  you  pray  so  loud?  The  Lord  isn't  deaf.*' 
He   answered,    "The   Lord   ain't  deaf,   but   grandma  is."     Now, 


344     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

that  is  the  trouble  with  the  legislature.  They  are  not  un- 
worthy of  trust,  but  sometimes  they  are  a  little  deaf,  and  the 
initiative  and  referendum  gives  the  legislature  a  hearing 
trumpet,  so  they  can  hear  clearly  what  the  people  want.  I 
have  heard  it  suggested  that  it  has  been  told  to  those  who 
represented  the  smaller  communities  that  the  referendum  would 
be  hostile  to  their  interests.  I  want  to  quote  from  a  table 
that  was  compiled  from  the  journal  of  the  last  legislature, 
showing  that  the  interests  of  the  small  communities  will  be 
better  conserved  by  the  initiative  and  referendum  than  by  the 
legislature,  as  at  present  composed.  Basing  calculations  on  the 
vote  for  Governor  in  the  last  election,  we  find  that  55  percent 
of  the  voters  live  in  the  large  communities  of  over  2,000,  and 
45  percent  in  the  communities  of  under  2,000.  Now,  that  shows 
very  clearly  that  the  burden  of  the  total  vote  in  the  state  is 
in  the  cities  and  large  towns.  But  let  us  turn  to  the  legis- 
lature and  find  how  the  cities  and  towns  are  represented. 
Drawing  the  line  between  the  two  classes  of  communities  at 
2,000,  we  find  56  percent  of  the  representatives  in  the  last 
House  coming  from  the  large  communities,  while  in  the  Sen- 
ate, which  has  equal  authority  with  the  House,  71  percent  of 
the  senators  came  from  the  communities  of  over  2,000.  So  you 
can  see  that  the  interests  of  the  small  communities  are  more 
safely  lodged  with  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
as  a  whole,  than  with  the  legislative  body,  which  is  composed 
of  a  larger  percent  of  legislators  and  senators  from  the  larger 
communities  than  their  proportion  of  the  popular  vote. 

Last  week,  you  remember,  a  similar  proposition  came  within 
twenty  votes  of  being  adqpted,  showing  the  strong  sentiment 
lavoring  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  some  form  in  this 
state.  I  do  not  believe  we  have  a  right  to  refuse  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire  the  chance  to  have  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum in  some  form  or  other,  when  so  large  a  proportion  in 
this  intelligent  body  are  in  favor  of  this  proposition,  and  I  cer- 
tainly hope  enough  of  the  gentlemen  who  voted  against  this 
proposition  last  week  will  see  the  justice  of  leaving  this 
question,  on  which  we  are  so  closely  divided,  to  the  people  to 
decide,  rather  than  to  cut  ofE  all  opportunity.  Here  is  a  single 
illustration  of  our  representative  form  of  government:  The 
people  in  one  town  in  this  state  voted  in  their  town  meeting 
four  to  one  in  favor  of  some  form  of  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum. Here  one  of  the  delegates  from  that  town  votes 
against  the  initiative  and  referendum,  being  at  the  same  time 
a  representative  of  these  people.    How  are  those  people  to  be 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  345 

represented  on  this  proposition  unless  the  delegates  from  their 
town  vote  in  favor  of  allowing  them  to  have  it?  By  votes  of 
four  to  one  they  have  asked  for  it.  The  same  with  the  lirange 
of  the  state.  As  has  been  shown,  nearly  four  to  one  of  the 
Granges  who  took  the  trouble  to  express  themselves  on  this 
proposition  have  voted  for  some  form  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum.  How  are  they  going  to  get  the  chance  to  get  it 
unless  this  Convention  submits  the  question  to  them?  I  cer- 
tainly hope  that  this  Convention  will,  on  the  ground  that  Reso- 
lution No.  47  is  more  conservative  a  proposition  than  Resolu- 
tion No.  4,  vote  to  submit  this  question  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  disagree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Jaffrey  in  his  explanation  of  representative  government.  In- 
troduction of  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  what  the  gen- 
tleman from  Laconia  stated  the  other  day,  a  revolution  in  the 
form  of  government.  Revolutions  may  be  peaceful,  but  they 
are  nevertheless  revolutions.  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  speaking  of 
the  equal  rights  of  men,  said,  "Modern  times  have  the  signal 
advantage,  too,  of  having  discovered  the  only  device  by  wKich 
these  rights  can  be  secured,  to  wit,  government  by  the  people, 
acting  not  in  person,  but  by  representatives  chosen  by  them- 
selves." 

There  is  nothing  new  in  this  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Jaffrey,  nothing  that  the  fathers  of  the  republic  did 
not  consider  in  framing  the  National  and  State  Constitutions. 
Between  1776  and  1792  in  this  state  was  the  formative  and  con- 
structive period  of  our  Constitutions.  The  fathers,  in  framing 
National  and  State  Constitutions,  had  as  their  guide,  not  only 
the  experience  of  the  remote  past,  but  the  experience  of  their 
imme:liate  present.  In  what  the  historian  Fiske  calls  the  criti- 
cal period  of  American  history,  from  1783  to  1788,  the  country 
was  bordering  on  a  condition  of  almost  anarchy.  At  that  timo 
the  people  w^ere  in  distress.  They  were  deeply  in  debt,  with- 
out a  currency,  and  there  was  more  or  less  of  turbulence  in 
the  thirteen  colonies.  Prompted  by  what  they  saw  and  real- 
ized, the  patriotic  men  of  the  country  came  together  and  formed 
the  National  and  State  Constitutions,  with  the  restrictions  under 
which  we  now  live.  I  would  like  to  give  you  illustrations,  but 
I  have  only  time  for  one,  to  show  why  the  fathers  provided 
for  representative  government  instead  of  a  pure  democracy. 

In  the  state  of  Rhode  Island  there  was  a  demand  for  paper 
money  and  the  legislature,  in  response  to  that  demand,  issued 
$500,000  in  script,  to  be  loaned  to  the  people  upon  security  of 
their  real  estate.     The  money  was  issued  at  par  and  accepted 


346    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

by  the  people.  The  trouble  began  when  they  undertook  to  pass 
it.  The  merchants  refused  to  accept  It  at  its  face  value.  The 
legislature,  upon  demand  of  the  people,  was  again  called  to- 
gether and  passed  a  forcing  act,  imposing  a  fine  of  $500  against 
any  individual  who  refused  to  accept  the  currency  at  par,  one 
half  of  the  fine  going  to  the  informer.  Finally,  a  case  was 
brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state,  who  decided  the 
act  unconstitutional.  The  legislature  appointed  the  judges, 
pud  that  body  had  the  power  of  summary  removal.  The  people 
demanded  the  removal  of  the  judges  because  of  their  decision, 
and  four  of  them  were  removed  from  office.  The  people  also 
demanded  that  the  elective  franchise  be  taken  away  from  all 
voters  who  refused  to  accept  the  currency  at  its  face  value. 
This  was  going  too  far,  and  the  measure  failed.  The  paper 
money  had  been  issued  in  May.  In  November  following  it  was 
worth  sixteen  cents  on  the  dollar.  Here  you  have  the  initi- 
ative of  the  people  in  their  demand  for  a  paper  currency,  the 
referendum  to  a  people  and  their  demand  for  a  forcing  act  to 
make  it  good,  and  the  recall  of  judges  because  their  decision 
of  a  constitutional  question  did  not  meet  popular  approval. 

In  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  there  were  bitter  com- 
plaints against  the  Courts,  and  in  both  states  the  Courts  were 
terrorized  and  forced  to  adjourn  their  sittings.  In  New  Hamp- 
shire, a  mob  marched  to  Exeter,  where  the  legislature  was  sit- 
ting, and  threatened  it  with  dissolution  if  it  did  not  grant  their 
petition. 

Now,  then,  I  say,  citing  these  facts,  that  the  men  who  framed 
our  State  and  National  Constitutions  had  in  mind  the  exact 
things  that  are  being  proposed  by  these  modern  methods,  and 
they  provided  for  the  discussion  of  measures  by  representatives 
of  the  people,  for  the  deliberation  of  legislative  assemblies  and 
for  the  protection  of  Courts  against  turbulent  recall.  Of 
course,  legislatures  make  mistakes,  but  the  question  is  whether, 
if  you  refer  legislation  to  the  people,  assembled  in  mass,  they 
will  better  understand  the  questions  submitted  than  do  their 
chosen  representatives. 

I  wish  to  cite  two  cases  in  Oregon  where  the  referendum  has 
been  tried.  The  people  at  the  election  in  Oregon,  held  in  1910, 
passed  upon  proposed  laws,  which  filled  a  volume  of  200  pages, 
and  they  passed  upon  them  all  in  a  single  day,  each  voter  record- 
ing his  verdict  at  the  polling  booth  upon  both  the  candidates 
and  the  proposed  laws.  In  the  ordinary  legislative  body,  made 
up  of  no  different  material  from  that  of  which  the  people  are 
composed,  an  important  question  may  be  considered  for  a  day,  or 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  347 

even  for  a  week;  and  then,  with  the  arguments  fresh  in  their 
minds,  the  legislators  record  their  votes  upon  the  single  meas- 
ure. What  a  delightful  jumble  w^e  should  have  if  forty  dif- 
ferent statutes  were  voted  upon  in  the  space  of  a  half  hour 
by  the  people  assembled  at  an  election! 

Another  case  was  this:  There  are  two  methods  of  pursuing 
the  salmon  fisheries  in  the  Columbia  River.  In  the  lower  and 
sluggish  waters  of  the  stream,  fishing  is  done  by  the  net,  and 
in  the  upper  waters  by  the  wheel.  The  net  fishermen  desired 
to  prohibit  fishing  by  the  wheel,  and  they  procured  sufficient 
signatures  and  initiated  a  law  having  that  object  in  view.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  wheel  fishermen  at  the  same  time  wished  to 
restrict  fishing  oy  the  net  and  they  initiated  a  law  for  that  pur- 
pose. Both  laws  went  before  the  people  at  the  same  election, 
and  they  generously  passed  them  both,  and  thus,  'as  far  as  the 
action  of  the  people  was  concerned,  the  great  salmon  fisheries 
of  the  Columbia  were  practically  stopped. 

The  gentleman  from  Jaffrey  speaks  of  the  greater  pro- 
tection there  will  be  to  the  people  of  the  small  towns  in  re- 
ferring legislative  questions  to  the  popular  vote  for  decision. 
I  say  to  you  people  who  are  desirous  of  maintaining  the  town 
system  of  representation  in  the  legislature,  that,  if  you  change 
from  a  representative  government  to  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, you  will  be  taking  away  from  yourselves  the  power 
you  now  have.  You  have  influence  in  the  legislative  body  be- 
yond your  numbers,  you  have  an  influence  that  has  been  re- 
spected in  this  state,  and  that  has  secured  liberal  appropriations 
for  the  benefit  of  the  rural  towns.  The  cities  and  large  towns 
furnish  the  bulk  of  the  state  revenue  and  they  have  the  votes. 
Do  you  think  that  in  a  campaign  before  the  people  on  the  ques- 
tion of  appropriations,  with  hostility  arrayed  between  the 
small  towns  and  the  large  towns  and  cities,  that  you  could  make 
yourselves  felt  as  you  can  here?  I  say  no.  I  say  it  is  for  the 
interest  of  the  country  towns  to  vote  against  the  initiative  and 
referendum. 

Let  me  say  further  that  in  discussing  the  matter,  gentlemen 
have  omitted  to  speak  of  a  method  of  improving  the  legis- 
lature of  this  state  that  requires  no  constitutional  amendment. 
Under  the  old  system  of  annual  elections,  we  had  the  best  legis- 
lative bo-dy  of  any  state  in  the  Union.  It  was  then  the  cus- 
tom to  send  a  representative  to  the  legislature  for  two  terms 
if  he  behaved  himself,  and  more  if  he  showed  large  ability. 
What  was  the  result?  You  had  half  the  members  of  the  legis- 
lative body  who  were   experienced  men,  who  knew  how  to  do 


848    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  business.  The  other  half  were  new  men,  who  were  anxious 
to  return  a  second  time,  for  in  those  days  it  was  a  crime  "to 
die  a  yearling."  You  had  the  most  economical  legislature  iu 
this  country,  if  you  will  return  to  that  old  custom  of  electing 
legislators  for  two  terms  and  select  your  best  men  instead  of 
passing  the  office  around,  you  will  do  more  to  correct  the  mis- 
takes of  the  legislature  to-day  than  you  can  by  adopting  the 
initiative  and  referendum. 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, I  feel  it  a  duty  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  the  fact  that  the  people  in  Berlin, 
when  I  returned  home,  were  very  much  more  interested  in  the 
initiative  and  referendum  than  anj'thing  else,  and  the  question 
that  was  put  up  to  me  more  than  anj^  other  question  was:  Why 
did  you  allow  them  to  kill  the  initiative  and  referendum  propo- 
sition? We  want  a  chance  to  vote  on  it,  and  we  consider  we 
have  a  right  to  vote  on  it.  And  thej^  instructed  me  to  come 
down  here  and  do  all  I  could  to  bring  this  thing  to  a  vote  in 
such  a  way  that  it  would  finally  be  referred  to  the  people.  The 
last  gentleman  who  has  spoken  called  atention  to  the  condi- 
tions in  Rhode  Island  about  the  time  of  the  Revolution.  It 
occurred  to  me  that  this  condition  of  anarchy  was  brought 
about  by  the  rule  of  a  few  at  that  time,  and  the  Revolution 
was  the  result  of  allowing  a  few  to  rule  the  Colonies.  Further- 
more, the  conditions  which  the  gentleman  has  described  as 
taking  place  in  Rhode  Island  have,  without  question  in  my 
mind,  proven  that  if  the  initiative  and  referendum  had  been 
in  force  Rhode  Island  would  never  have  had  paper  currency,  be- 
cause the  majority  of  the  people  did  not  want  it;  the  paper 
currency  came  from  the  demand  of  a  few  and  not  a  demand 
of  the  majority.  We  hear  Jefferson  quot^ed  a  great  many  times 
against  the  initiative  and  referendum.  I  am  sorry  that  Jeffer- 
son is  not  here  to  defend  himself,  for  I  believe  he  would  have 
advocated  it,  because  it  means  representative  government,  and 
it  is  the  only  way  we  can  get  true  representative  government 
that  truly  represents.  I  hope,  in  conclusion.  Gentlemen,  that 
you  men,  especially  of  the  small  country  districts,  will  vote  in 
favor  of  the  initiative  and  referendum.  Mr.  Duncan  has  proven 
conclusively  that  it  does  give  you  more  power  than  you  have 
at  the  present  time,  and  not  less.  The  statement  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  that  you  will  have  less  power  cannot 
be  proven,  and  I  think  you  can  safely  take  Mr.  Duncan's  fig- 
iires  as  conclusive  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Wellman  of  New  London. — I  crave  the  indulgence  of  this 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  349 

Convention  but  a  few  moments.  I  was  not  present  at  the  vote 
that  was  taken  last  week,  being  detained  on  account  of  busi- 
ness. I  wish  to  raise  my  voice  briefly  in  favor  of  the  initi- 
ative and  referendum.  I  believe,  Gentlemen  of  this  Convention, 
that  there  is  a  demand  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  that  they  have  a  chance  to  say  whether  they 
want  the  initiative  oii  referendum  or  not.  I  simply  want  to 
take  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  regarding 
the  fisheries  in  the  Columbia  Elver,  and  make  one  statement 
which  he  did  not.  After  the  people  of  Oregon  had  voted, 
through  initiative,  that  these  provisions  should  be  made  for 
the  protection  of  the  fishing  on  the  Columbia  River,  then  the 
legislature  got  into  the  harness  and  enacted  a  fair  and  equit- 
able restriction  for  the  fishing  industry.  That  shows  what 
the  initiative  and  referendum  will  do. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  I  have  not  been  a  citizen  of  this  state  for 
a  very  long  period  of  time,  but  I  have  been  interested  in  it. 
My  previous  education  was  in  a  state  whose  problems  are  simi- 
lar to  those  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  all  my  edu- 
cation has  been  along  the  line  that  would  lead  me  to  believe 
that  I  am  a  citizen  in  a  democracy  that  is  firm.  We  were  told 
recently  in  this  House  that  we  could  not  with  confidence  trust 
the  legislature  to  enact  laws,  and  now  the  same  reactionaries 
come  forward  to  say  that  we  cannot  trust  the  people  to  enact 
just  and  equitable  laws.  Whom  can  we  trust?  A  few  honor- 
able gentlemen  in  the  front  seats  of  the  giant  House  which 
is  so  unwieldy.  No,  Gentlemen,  I  believe  you  can  trust  th>i 
people,  and  I  believe  that  this  is  not  a  weapon  to  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  that  will  be  misused. 

Two  hundred  pages  of  printed  material  were  in  the  hands 
of  the  voters  in  Oregon  at  the  last  election.  There  were  no 
lobbyists  who  had  the  opportunity  of  walking  up  and  down 
the  House,  where  the  whole  people  of  Oregon  were  assembled 
together.  The  voter,  in  his  own  home,  had  the  opportunity  of 
sitting  down  by  the  side  of  his  wife,  of  going  over  this  mat- 
ter calmly,  and  of  reading  the  arguments  as  they  appeared 
there  in  black  and  white.  There  was  no  opportunity  to  hear 
*'the  eagle  scream,"  and  have  the  mind  clouded  by  issues  that 
were  not  in  point.  He  had  the  opportunity  to  decide  the 
question  as  to  its  right  and  wrong.  Gentlemen,  though  there 
have  been  many  laws  proposed,  yet,  if  you  will  read  the  hij5- 
tory  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  movement  in  Oregon,  you 
will  find  very  few  laws  have  been  passed.  If  my  figures  are 
correct,  725  bills  fv^ere  offered  at  the  last  session  of  the  legi«.- 


350    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

lature  of  that  state,  and  more  than  200  of  them  passed,  while  in 
the  whole  history  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  movement  Id 
that  state  only  a  few  over  twenty  initiated  bills  have  been 
passed.  So  it  seems  to  me  we  may  rest  safely  upon  this  propo- 
sition that  the  people  of  the  state  are  interested  in  the  general 
welfare,  and,  being  interested  in  the  general  welfare  of  the 
people,  the  people,  as  a  whole,  cannot  be  persuaded  to  legislate 
against  their  own  welfare.     I  thank  you. 

Mr.  Rowe  of  Kensington. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  have  only  a  few  words  I  am  going  to  say.  I  am 
going  to  talk  as  fast  as  I  can,  and  say  all  I  can  in  these  few 
moments.  We  have  heard  about  the  gentlemen  who  sit  in  the 
front  row.  I  happen  to  sit  back,  but,  for  these  gentlemen  who 
sit  in  the  front  row  I  am  going  to  say,  they  are  poked  fun  at 
because  they  do  sit  in  the  front.  I  notice  when  some  measure 
is  going  to  be  voted  on  there  are  gentlemen  walking  back 
and  forth  in  the  rear  of  the  hall  who  are  interested  in  the 
measure,  and  they  do  not  sit  in  the  front  rows  either.  I  won't 
call  any  names.  I  took  opportunity  myself  to  notice  that  they 
were  not  the  gentlemen  who  sit  in  the  front  rows.  I  want  to 
say  that  just  for  the  benefit  of  the  gentlemen  who  sit  in  the 
front  seats.  I  like  to  have  a  square  deal,  although  I  do  not 
sit  in  the  front  row.  A  man  whose  honesty  I  do  not  question 
said  to  me  this  morning,  "Young  man,  you  are  going  on  record, 
and  they  can  tell  in  the  future  how  you  voted  on  these  things." 
I  answered,  "Yes,  I  know  I  am  going  on  record,  and  I  am  once 
more  going  on  record  against  this  measure  when  it  comes  up 
again."  And,  for  the  sake  of  the  young  men,  I  appeal  to  yoj 
to  vote  against  this  measure.  I  hope  it  will  be  defeated.  Don't 
say,  "What  for?"  I  left  on  my  office  door  one  day  a  notice, 
"Will  be  back  at  half  past  one,"  and  some  one  wrote  under  it, 
"What  for?"  Don't  say  that  to  me.  We  have  heard  about  a 
majority  here,  that  there  are  just  two  or  three  votes  moro 
needed.  We  are  governed  by  a  majority,  are  we  not,  in  this 
Convention?  And  if  there  was  only  one  vote  lacking,  if  there 
was  one  vote  to  defeat  this  measure,  I  don't  see  but  that  would 
be  the  end  of  it.  I  -don't  see  but  that  we  are  to  be  governe.l 
by  the  motion  or  the  measure  that  gets  the  most  votes.  We 
have  heard  about  Oregon;  we  have  been  sung  to  about  Oregon 
for  the  last  few  years.  If  I  remember  correctly,  Jonathan 
Bourne.  Jr..  in  Oregon,  has  evidently  gone  to  that  bourne  from 
which  no  traveler  returns.  He  was  the  man  who  has  talked 
about  these  things  so  much  there,  and  the  people  of  Oregon, 
who  have  known  him,  and  seen  him,  and  loved  him,  and  hugged 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  351 

him,  why  didn't  they  return  him  to  the  United  States  Senate, 
if  he  is  a  saviour,  and  so  on?  We  have  heard  about  fishing  on 
the  Columbia  River,  and  how  they  voted,  and  now  they  cannot 
fish  at  all  in  the  river.  Perhaps  it  is  just  as  well  not  to  fish  in 
that  river,  but  it  shows  there  are  to  be  conflicting  laws.  Take 
the  250  pages  of  arguments.  Do  you  suppose  the  people  in  the 
country  are  going  to  wade  through  such  a  book?  I  voted  for 
one  referendum,  that  which  we  now  have  relative  to  organic 
law.  I  was  younger  then.  I  remember  the  talk  going  around. 
They  said,  "What  are  these  things  about?  What  are  we  both- 
ered with  them  for?  We  have  sent  people  up  to  the  legislature. 
We  don't  want  to  bother  with  it;  we  had  rather  be  at  home  at- 
tending to  our  business.  We  will  vote  'no';  we  guess  it  is  right 
just  as  it  is."  And  I  think  that  jou  will  find  that  will  be  the 
general  result.  They  will  vote  "no,";  they  will  trust  us  up 
here.  If  j^ou  cannot  find  a  good  doctor,  are  you  going  to  doc- 
tor yourself?  That  seems  to  be  the  proposition  here.  If  you 
don't  know  where  to  find  a  good  doctor,  doctor  yourself.  If 
you  can't  find  a  good  legislator,  go  yourself.  That  is  a  nice 
argument!  I,  for  my  part,  don't  approve  of  it.  We  have  heard 
that  the  Grange  has  endorsed  this.  I  have  had  a  little  experi- 
ence with  petitions.  My  stars!  they  don't  half  look  at  these 
things.  Thej^  will  sign  anything  to  get  you  out  of  the  way. 
Some  men,  I  will  admit,  do  consider  these  things  that  are  put 
to  them  in  the  secret  orders.  I  claim  I  can  get  a  petition  to 
do  almost  anything,  if  I  start  around  and  try  as  hard  as  I  can. 
I  guess  I  may  have  said  pretty  nearly  enough,  but  I  again  ap- 
peal to  the  young  fellows,  I  appeal  to  the  men  from  the  coun- 
try districts,  and  I  appeal  to  the  older  men  to  go  on  record 
against  this  measure. 

Mr.  Mower  of  Jaffrey. — Gentlemen,  I  am  the  other  man  from 
Jatt'rey.  I  have  ^ad  it  put  up  to  me  that  I  am  false  to  my 
constituents  because  I  voted  against  this  measure.  I  did  vote 
against  it.  The  facts  in  my  town  are  these:  The  gentleman 
has  said  four  to  one  have  voted  in  favor  of  it.  They  did.  We 
have  heard  little  else  in  our  town  for  the  past  year  but  initi- 
ative and  referendum.  We  have  had  it  put  up  to  us  for  break- 
fast, dinner  and  supper,  and  at  our  annual  election  72  voted 
in  favor  of  it  out  of  the  voting  population  of  350.  Now,  Gen- 
tlemen, when  I  voted  against  it,  I  think  I  knew  where  1  was 
at,  for  I  have  lived  in  our  town  all  my  life,  and  I  think  I  repre- 
sented those  who  sent  me  down  here.  Now,  Gentlemen,  I  think 
we  can  point  to  some  bright  men  whom  we  have  sent  from 
year  to  year  to  represent  us  in  the  House,  and  in  the  Senate, 


352     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

and  1  believe  that  just  as  soon  as  you  attach  this  amendment 
to  our  Constitution  you  belittle  our  Constitution.  I  am  willing 
to  go  on  record  as  being  opposed  to  this  measure. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord, — I  should  not  have  considered  it 
necessary  or  advisable  to  say  anything  on  this  subject  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  most  astounding  statement,  which  is 
undoubtedly  true,  made  by  a  member  of  this  Convention,  who 
knew  what  he  was  talking  about,  that,  up  to  ten  years  ago,  the 
legislature  of  ]Sew  Hampshire  was  absolutely  controlled  by 
the  railroads.  That  is  a  statement  by  a  man  who  was  a  mem- 
ber of  several  of  those  legislatures;  a  man  who  has  known 
more  about  legislation  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  during 
the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  than  any  other  man  in  this 
assembly,  and  that  is  a  statement  by  him,  which  we  all  know 
to  be  true.  Now,  fears  were  expressed  on  the  subject  of  tax- 
ation that  if  the  corporations  had  a  motive,  had  the  desire, 
they  might  again  control  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire. 
The  corporations  will  never  control  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, no  matter  how  hard  they  try;  and,  so  I  say  that  I  am 
moved  to  express  my  views  on  the  initiative  and  referendum 
because  I  agree  with  the  gentleman  that  there  may  be  danger 
that  the  corporations  will  undertake  to  control  the  legislature 
of  New  Hampshire  again,  as  they  did  control  it  for  many 
years,  ending  about  six  years  ago.  It  might  seem  that  my 
advocacy  of  any  measure  here  doomed  it  to  defeat,  and  so  the 
friends  of  this  measure  will  have  to  pardon  me  for  speaking 
on  this  particular  subject,  but  I  remember  my  legislative  ex- 
perience. And,  speaking  of  railroad  control,  in  1907,  in  the 
legislature,  I  voted  in  favor  of  about  a  half  dozen  laws  that 
the  people  wanted,  and  every  time  I  voted  with  the  minority. 
I  was  returned  to  the  legislature  in  1909;  I  voted  the  same 
way,  exactly,  on  the  same  measures,  and  every  time  I  was  In 
the  majority.  Now,  when  I  vote  according  to  the  dictates  of 
my  conscience  and  my  best  judgment,  I  am  willing  to  let  time 
decide  what  the  result  shall  be. 

Now,  there  is  a  practical  proposition  that  we  have  before  us. 
I  think  if  the  gentleman  had  told  the  reason  why  the  railroads 
controlled  the  legislatures,  and  how  it  happened  to  control 
the  legislators,  he  would  have  told  you  that  up  to  1889  we  had 
a  most  extraordinary  railroad  fight  in  New  Hampshire,  extend- 
ing from  1883,  when  two  railroads  fought  each  other  during 
the  three  or  four  legislatures  up  to  the  legislature  of  1889. 
As  long  as  they  fought  each  other  the  interests  of  the  people 
were  fairly  secure,  and  the  people  learned  the  facts  about  th« 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  353 

railroad  systems  of  the  state,  which  they  needed  to  know  in 
order  to  bring  to  bear  the  proper  pressure  on  their  representa- 
tives. In  1889  these  two  contending-  factions  entered  into  an 
agreement,  and  divided  up  the  railroad  territory  in  the  state, 
and,  incidentally,  after  they  made  the  agreement,  passed  laws 
and  made  arrangements,  in  order  to  make  effectual  the  control 
this  gentleman  has  spoken  about. 

Now,  I  have  no  desire  to  be  sensational;  I  don't  think  I  could 
if  I  tried;  but  we  have  another  railroad  fight  looming  up  in 
the  immediate  future  that  will  make  the  railroad  fight  of  '87 
look  like  a  prize  drill  exhibition.  We  have  the  New  York, 
New  Haven  &  Hartford  Railroad-  system,  now  in  the  control 
of  the  Boston  &  Maine.  We  have  in  this  fight  this  tremendous 
Grand  Trunk  Railroad  system,  with  all  the  capital  of  England 
and  Canada,  and  it  happens,  through  no  fault  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, that  this  territory  has  been  selected  as  the  final  battle- 
ground between  those  two  gigantic  interests,  because  the  Grand 
Trunk  cannot  get  an  outlet  to  the  port  of  Boston  without 
passing  through  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  Now,  anybody 
can  regret  the  fact  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is  un- 
wittingly and  unwillingly  put  into  this  position.  The  fight  is 
coming,  and  I  think  I  am  stating  things  within  the  bounds  of 
fact  when  I  say,  there  was  never  such  a  railroad  fight  in  this 
state,  or  in  any  other  state,  but  that  was  settled  by  the  two 
contending  parties  coming  together  and  dividing  things  up 
to  suit  themselves.  If  the  time  arrives  in  New  Hampshire 
when  these  two  get  together,  and  divide  up  the  interests,  what- 
ever legislation  is  passed  I  want  to  have  go  to  the  people  for 
ratification.  And  so  I  say,  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  needs 
the  initiative  and  referendum,  and  it  needs  it  nmv.  And  I  sa3'' 
further  that  this  is  one  of  those  questions,  such  as  was  spoken 
of  yesterday,  which  the  people  have  a  right  to  pass  on.  It 
strikes  me  that  I  have  not  the  right, — I  am  not  speaking  for 
the  rest  of  you;  you  have  a  right  to  do  as  you  please, — I  con- 
sider, in  my  situation,  that  I  have  not  the  right  to  forbid  the 
people  to  pass  on  this  question  of  initiative  and  referendum 
for  themselves. 

Mr.  Hobhs  of  Wolfehoro. — Mr.  President,  I  am  aw^are  that  the 
revision  of  a  Constitution  is  a  serious  matter,  and  those  w^ho 
have  that  duty  to  perform  bear  a  grave  responsibility. 

Any  method  by  which,  in  a  deliberate  and  orderly  manner, 
the  actions  of  our  public  officials  or  measures  that  may  be  ob- 
jectionable may  be  reviewed  by  referendum  vote  of  the  people 
is  far  better  than,  and  should  supersede,  denunciation  of  either 


354     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Court  or  officials.     This  denunciation  breeds   contempt  of   law, 
and  lawlessness  can  accomplish  no  good  results  to  mankind. 

Let  me  say  at  the  beginning  of  my  argument  that  I  am 
heartily  in  favor  of  the  resolution  before  this  Convention  at 
this  time,  when  divided. 

The  referendum  vote  of  the  people  should  be  taken  at  a  time 
when  temporary  passion  has  passed  and  opportunity  has  been 
given  to  consider  fairly  and  to  debate  the  question  at  issue — 
and  that  has  been  provided  for  in  the  resolution  before  this 
Convention. 

The  makers,  the  framers  of  our  Federal  Constitution  and 
our  State  Constitution,  were  great  men,  were  able  men,  but, 
however  able,  they  could  not  anticipate  or  solve  the  new^  prob- 
lems of  life  and  government, — corporation  and  individual, — 
which  have  taken  place  in  the  3'ears  that  are  past,  and  are 
now  constantly  taking  place.  Go  back  to  the  years  before  the 
Civil  War.  Contemplate  the  situation  then  and  now,  if  you 
will,  and  changes  are  on  us  ever  since,  and  will  be  to  the  end 
of  time, 

Mr.  President,  the  makers  of  the  Constitution  built  for  the 
conditions  then  existing.  Their  great  aim  was  to  protect  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  individual  citizen;  they  emphasized 
wider  freedom  because  life  was  then  essentially  the  individual 
life.  But,  as  individual  life  has  come  and  more,  giving  birth 
to  crowded  community  life,  the  rights  and  privileges  once 
deemed  essential  to  the  perfect  liberty  of  the  individual  are 
often  found  to  stand  in  the  way  of  public  welfare  and  to  breed 
wrong  and  do  injustice  to  the  community  at  large.  For,  bear 
in  mind,  it  is  the  public  good  which  demands  our  attention. 
Seek  the  public  good  and  public  welfare  and  you  will  promote 
the  individual  good,  which,  in  itself,  is  the  upbuilding  of  the 
community  and  in  the  interest  of  humanity.  The  country 
grows  in  population,  grows  in  wealth,  grows  in  intelligence, 
and  our  Constitution  must  also  grow  and  keep  pace  with 
changed  and  changing  conditions. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  do  not  decrease  the  im- 
portance of  legislative  bodies,  nor  do  they  withdraw  authority 
from  those  who  are  elected  to  represent  the  people.  On  the 
contrary,  when  the  people  have  the  initiative  and  referendum 
with  which  to  protect  themselves,  they  can  safely  confer  a 
larger  authority  upon  their  representatives. 

When  the  Constitution  provides  for  the  initiative  and  the 
referendum,  the  people  simply  say  to  their  representatives, 
"Do  your  duty,  follow  your  judgment  and  your  conscience,  and 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  355 

the  more  accurately  you  interpret  our  wishes  the  less  we  shall 
have  to  do." 

The  fact  that  the  people  can  act  through  the  initiative  and 
referendum  makes  it  less  likely  that  they  will  need  to  employ 
the  remedy.  There  will  not  be  so  many  bad  laws  to  com- 
plain of  when  the  people  reserve  the  right  to  veto,  and  it  will 
be  easier  to  secure  the  enactment  of  good  laws  when  the 
people  are  not  absolutely  dependent  upon  legislators  for  the 
enactment  of  such  measures  as  they  may  desire. 

Direct  legislation  exerts  an  indirect,  as  well  as  a  direct,  influ- 
ence, and  when  the  system  is  fully  established  and  the  people 
thoroughly  understand  it,  it  is  not  likely  to  be  employed  often, 
because  those  elected  to  represent  the  people  will  be  more  in 
sympathy  with  their  constituents.  The  referendum  ruins  the 
business  of  the  lobbyist  and  grafter,  because  a  crooked  legis- 
lature cannot  "deliver  the  goods."  It  is  a  fine  club  for  use 
on  crooks.  These  two  weapons  of  popular  government  are 
especially  useful  in  the  matter  of  franchise  grabs  and  crooked 
tax  laws.  These  direct  processes  of  passing  laws  the  people 
do  want  and  vetoing  the  laws  the  people  do  not  want,  and 
recalling  public  servants  who  prove  to  be  crooks,  have  become 
ncessary  in  modern  days,  because  commercial  interests  have 
gone  into  the  governing  business  through  machine  politics, 
contributing  money  to  town,  county  and  state  machines,  and 
getting  government  privileges  in  return. 

The  new  method  of  governing,  by  direct  legislation, — the 
initiative  and  referendum, — has  received  widespread  approval 
in  over  half  the  area  of  the  United  States,  because  it  has  been 
found  that  a  thorough-going  corrupt  practices  act  and  olhci- 
needed  remedies  could  not  be  passed  through  legislatures 
elected  by  corrupt  processes. 

These  principles  are  essential  in  order  to  restore  integrity 
of  government.  The  initiative  and  referendum  stimulates  the 
interest,  the  patriotism  and  the  confidence  of  the  citizen  voter, 
and  raises  the  intelligence  of  the  electorate.  It"  prevents  the 
legislator  being  tempted  to  do  wrong.  It  stimulates  him  to 
do  right.  He  cannot  sell  public  franchises  without  considera- 
tion of  his  own  private  advantage  and  of  the  disadvantage  of 
the  people,  because  the  people  can  veto  his  acts.  It  limits  the 
number  of  bills  in  the  legislature,  and  puts  an  end  to  blackmail- 
ing of  corporations  and  commercial  interests.  It  establishes 
the  legislature  in  the  confidence  of  the  people  by  merit.  Above 
al),  it  gives  stability  to  property  and  stability  to  government. 
When  the  people  can  have  any  law  they  want,  and  veto  any 


356    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

law  they  do  not  want,  they  can  obviously  have  as  good  a  gov- 
ernment as  their  intelligence  and  sense  justifies.  It  perfects 
representative  government,  and  makes  the  representative  truly 
representative.  It  provides  the  people  with  the  means  to  put 
an  end  to  corrupt  practices  and  establish  integrity  of  gov- 
ernment. It  is  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of 
this  matter. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  is  strictly  constitutional,  under 
the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  Maine,  Arkansas,  Oklahoma, 
Missouri,  Montana,  South  Dakota,  Oregon  and  Nevada.  It  has 
been  adopted  by  the  legislatures  or  Constitutions  of  California, 
Washington,  Wyoming,  North  Dakota,  Colorado,  Nebraska,  Wis- 
consin and  Ohio.  It  has  been  made  the  issue  by  one  or  both 
parties  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Pennsylvania,  Massachu- 
setts, New  Jersey,  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  Kansas  and  other 
states,  and  is  in  use  in  some  of  the  foreign  countries.  It  is 
sweeping  the  Union  because  of  the  urgent  necessity  to  end 
corrupt  practices  and  the  commercial  control  of  government. 

This  is  what  actually  happens  in  parliament-governed 
countries,  such  as  Great  Britain.  A  party  majority  rules  till 
there  are  certain  evidences  that  it  is  no  longer  in  harmony  with 
the  country.  The  cabinet  resigns;  parliament  is  dissolved;  an 
election  is  held.  The  representatives  remain  or  retire,  accord- 
ing to  the  popular  verdict.  Given  the  machinery  for  really 
popular  elections,  such  a  system  furnishes,  probably,  the  most 
perfect  working  of  popular  representative   government. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  does  not  overthrow  repre- 
sentative government;  it  has  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  ful- 
fill. The  purpose  of  representative  government  is  to  repre- 
sent, and  that  purpose  fails  when  representatives  misrepresent 
their  constituents.  Experience  has  shown  that  the  defects  of 
our  government  are  not  in  the  people  themselves,  but  in  those 
who,  acting  as  representatives  of  the  people,  embezzle  power 
and  turn  to  their  own  advantage  the  authority  given  them  for 
the  advancement  of  the  public  welfare.  All  of  the  Constitu- 
tions of  the  states  and  the  amendments  of  the  State  Consti- 
tutions are  determined  by  a*  referendum  vote.  Thus,  Gentle- 
men, those  great  men,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  take  in 
the  people  when  that  document  is  to  be  dealt  with. 

That  great  and  serious  duty  of  amending  the  Constitution, 
they  were  willing  the  people  should  share  with  them  the  re- 
sponsibility. Why  not  let  the  people  have  a  share  in  other 
matters? 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  357 

It  has  cost  centuries  to  secure  popular  government;  the  blood 
of  millions  of  the  best  and  bravest  has  been  poured  out  to 
establish  the  doctrine  that  governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  All  this  struggle, 
all  this  sacrifice,  has  been  in  vain,  if,  when  we  secure  a  rep- 
resentative government,  the  people's  representatives  can  betray 
them  with  impunity  and  mock  their  constituents,  while  they 
draw  salaries  from  the  public  treasury. 

Let  me  call  to  your  mind,  if  you  please,  the  proof  of  some 
of  these  assertions.  The  Constitution  of  this  country,  us 
founded  by  those  great  and  good  men,  they  incorporated  into 
that  document  the  institution  of  slavery,  and  when,  in  the 
fifties,  the  people  began  to  see  the  wrong  therein,  and  de- 
manded no  further  extension,  you  will  remember  the  question 
was,  Shall  new  territory,  new  states,  come  into  the  Union  slave 
states  or  free  states?  It  was  Kansas  and  Nebraska  coming 
in,  and  they  voted  on  the  question  of  slavery,  and  they  voted 
under  the  guidance  of  a  God  for  the  right  to  come  into  the 
Union   free. 

Mr.  President,  I  say.  Sir,  that  that  vote  tells  you  where  the 
people  stood  then  and  ever  stand.  It  is  my  belief  that,  if  the 
matter  could  have  been  referred  to  the  people,  slavery  would 
have  been  voted  out  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  pre- 
served without  bloodshed.  But  it  was  not  so.  Millions  of 
money  was  spent,  hundreds  of  thousands  left  their  homes,  left 
their  friends,  left  their  lives  or  ruined  their  health  on  the  bat- 
tlefield to  preserve  this  Union.  By  that  blood,  by  bullets  in- 
stead of  ballots,  slavery  was  abolished  and  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  added,  and  the  Union  pre- 
served.    Motto,  trust  the  people. 

If  this  work  that  we  are  here  to  perform  is  to  be  referred 
to  the  people  for  their  approval  or  disapproval, — ^and  it  is, — 
the  great  work  of  the  revision  of  the  Constitution,  why  should 
we  hesitate  to  let  the  work  of  the  legislatures  that  are  to  fol- 
low us  be  subjected  to  the  same  tribunal,  the  people,  for  ap- 
proval?    I  see  none. 

In  reply  to  those  who  have  preceded  me,  and  to  those  who 
may  follow  here  today,  let  me  call  to  the  stand  one  who  was 
always  on  the  side  of  human  rights,  the  immortal  Lincoln. 
Lincoln  spoke  on  the  battlefield  of  Gettysburg  of  the  unfin- 
ished work  of  those  who  died  there.  He  said,  "Every  genera- 
tion finds  the  work  of  the  last  unfinished.  Every  generation 
leaves  to  the  next  an  unfinished  work.  Everywhere  the  work 
of  government  is  in  the  line  of  bringing  the  government  nearer 


358     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

to  the  people.  I  believe  in  everything  that  tends  to  bring  the 
government  nearer  to  the  people  and  to  give  the  people  larger 
control  over  their  government." 

Those  are  the  words  of  Lincoln,  and  I  submit  they  are  applic- 
able here  today. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  in  favor  of  this  resolution  because  I 
believe  the  time  has  come  when  the  people  should  have  a  bet- 
ter hand  on  their  government.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  resolution 
because  it  brings  the  government  nearer  to  the  people,  and 
because  I  believe  the  nearer  we  get  the  government  to  the 
people  the  better  government  we  will  have.  I  admonish  you, 
I  warn  you,  that  this  is  a  part  of  the  unfinished  work  left  for 
us  to  perform.  Therefore,  I  urge  the  adoption  of  this  reso- 
lution. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Hollis,  if  I  remember  rightly,  said  that  in  the  legislature  of 
1907  he  was  a  member,  and  he  voted  for  some  half  dozen 
measures,  more  or  less,  that  the  people  wanted,  and  he  was 
in  the  minority;  that  he  was  returned  to  the  legislature  in 
1909  and  voted  for  the  same  half  dozen  measures,  and  voted 
with  the  majority.  It  seems  to  me  that,  putting  those  two 
statements  together,  we  had  a  referendum  then  under  the  Con- 
stitution as  it  is.  The  people  had  an  opportunity  to  discuss, 
to  meditate  upon  measures  that  he  supported  in  1907,  and 
which  were  defeated,  and,  following  his  line  of  argument,  the 
people  sent  to  the  legislature  of  1909  men  who  passed  fhose 
measures,  and  that  was  without  tinkering  with  our  Constitu- 
tion, without  removing  restrictions,  without  striking  a  deadly 
blow  at  representative  government.  In  the  fundamental  law 
there  are  some  restrictions,  as  there  ought  to  be,  and  I  am 
opposed  to  this  proposed  amendment  because  I  am  opposed 
to  starting  out  in  an  open  boat  without  rudder  on  any  un- 
charted sea.  I  believe  in  standing  by  fundamental  princi- 
ples that  have  worked  satisfactorily  in  the  past,  according  to 
the  gentleman's  own  admission,  and  will  work  satisfactorily  in 
the  future.     I  hope  this  amendment  will  be  defeated. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — I  think  that  this  subject  was  pretty 
fully  discussed  when  we  had  Resolution  No.  4,  introduced  by 
the  gentleman  from  Jaffrey,  before  us,  and  I  think  it  was 
shown  at  that  time  that  the  initiative  and  referendum,  in  the 
hands  of  the  people,  would  prove  a  strong  weapon  of  defense 
against  the  encroachments  of  special  privilege,  should  the  oc- 
casion demand.  To  prove  that  there  is  danger  from  such  a 
Bource,   I  will  quote   you,   as  my  authority,  the    words   of   tho 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  869 

gentleman  from  Concord,  who  spoke  to  us  yesterday,  which 
were  these:  "It  is  true  that  just  now  the  people  of  this  state 
have  shorn  the  corporations  of  their  political  power,  but  the 
whirligig  of  time  may  reverse  this  condition  and  give  us  back 
the  old  conditions."  If  this  should  prove  true,  wouldn't  this 
be  of  immeasurable  value  to  the  people  of  this  state?  The  only 
argument  that  can  be  made  against  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, as  applied  to  the  organic  law  of  the  state,  is  that  the 
people  cannot  be  trusted.  That,  of  course,  is  a  denial  of  the 
very  principle  of  popular  self-government.  Genuine  govern- 
ment by  the  people  is  satisfactory  because  it  is  most  efficient 
and  just.  A  number  of  the  members  of  this  initiative  and 
referendum  Convention  do  not  look  on  tlieir  duties  here  as  I 
do.  The  people  took  the  initiative  and  called  this  Convention 
to  consider  various  subjects,  for  there  were  questions  before 
the  people  that  they  wanted  a  chance  to  put  into  our  Consti- 
tution, and  everything  we  vote  to  do  here  has  the  referendum 
attached  to  it.  I  think  our  duty  here  is  not,  like  a  legislative 
body,  to  discuss  these  things  and  decide  them  as  we  think,  but 
to  put  these  questions  into  the  best  shape  we  can  for  the 
people  to  vote  on.  Take,  for  instance,  the  Grange,  a  conserva- 
tive body, — you  cannot  say  they  run  wild,  thirty  thousand 
people, — and  they  ask,  more  than  three  to  one,  that  this  be 
submitted  to  the  people  for  them  to  vote  on,  and  certainly,  if 
two  thirds  of  the  people  of  this  state  vote  that  this  should  be 
a  part  of  our  Constitution,  it  certainly  should  be  so.  The 
initiative  and  referendum,  in  some  form,  should  be  submitted 
to  the  people,  and,  if  two  thirds  of  the  voters  are  in  favor  of 
it,  the  people  should  have  it. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warren. — Gentlemen,  the  question  that  is  up 
here  at  issue  was  ably  and  eloquently  discussed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  who  was  the  first  speaker.  He  went  back 
to  the  days  of  the  early  government  of  provinces,  and  gave  us 
a  very  eloquent  discourse.  I  fail  to  see  where  that  is  of  any 
practical  moment  to  us.  I  regret  that  that  gentleman  and  his 
friends  did  not  take  up  another  question  that  is  of  practical 
moment  to  the  members  of  this  Convention,  and  every  citizen 
of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  namely,  why  the  orders  of  our 
Public  Service  Commission  to  the  American  Express  Company, 
that  they  cut  down  their  rates,  are  absolutely  defied  today  in 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire?  And  that  order  is  defied.  No 
g-entleman  is  getting  up  here  and  getting  very  much  excited 
over  it,  but  it  is  today  the  only  practical  anarchy  existing  in 
the    state    of   New   Hampshire.     And   for   what    reason    does"  it 


360      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

exist?     That  they  may  get,  as  they  have  in  the  past,  usurious 
dividends  for  their  stockholders, 

Mr.  Biisiel  of  Laconia. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  do  not  propose  to  appeal  to  the  prejudices  of 
this  Convention  in  what  I  say  on  this  subject.  I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  introduce  here  the  railroad  question  in  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  again.  If  we  cannot  discuss  this  question  on 
higher  grounds  than  appeals  to  prejudices,  I  think  we  would 
better  adjourn. 

I  was  a  member  of  the  legislature  of  1883,  when,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Hollis,  has  said,  the  railroad  fight 
began,  and  I  voted  against  the  Colby  bill  to  consolidate  rail- 
roads, but  shall  not  discuss  that  matter  now.  I  am  opposed 
to  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  New  Hampshire  because  it 
establishes  the  fourth  House  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
We  already  have  three, — the  Senate,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  the  Third  House.  I  am  opposed  to  establishing  in 
New  Hampshire  the  Fourth  House,  and  that  is  what  you  do 
when  you  appeal  to  the  people  outside  of  the  representatives 
whom  the  people  send  here.  I  am  opposed  to  this  thing  be- 
cause it  is  an  utter  degradation  of  representative  government, 
and  it  will  lead  to  its  abolition,  if  it  is  carried  to  its  logical 
conclusions.  When  you  begin  to  submit  some  matters  to  the 
people  as  a  whole,  you  have  got  to  end  up  with  submitting 
all  matters  to  the  people  as  a  whole,  and  you  will  find  it  so. 
One  of  the  crying  evils  of  the  times  is  too  much  legislation. 
We  have  got  already  too  large  representation  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  far  too  much  legislation.  When  you  can  tap  every 
man  on  his  back  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  and  say,  "You 
are  a  legislator,  you  are  just  as  good  as  any  man  you  send 
there  to  the  legislature,"  you  simply  interest  him  then  in  hunt- 
ing up  everything  under  the  sun  that  he  can  find  for  a  new 
"issue,"  and  get  a  petition  to  put  it  before  the  people  in  a 
new  law.  Ah,  Gentlemen,  it  has  been  said  sometimes  that  we 
have  too  many  cranks  already.  I  don't  know  of  any  scheme 
which  would  start  into  operation  so  persistently  the  men  who 
bear  that  sobriquet  as  the  initiative  and  referendum.  I  do 
not  know  of  anything  so  well  calculated  to  create  turmoil. 
The  state  of  Oregon,  at  the  next  election,  while  electing  state 
and  national  officials,  has  got  to  pass  on  more  than  forty  laws. 
They  have  got  to  pass  on  those  laws,  even  without  examina- 
tion in  a  Committee.  Worse  than  that,  they  have  taken  away 
the  veto  power  from  the  Governor  as  to  such  laws  and  re- 
moved  all   check   in   legislation   by   the   executive.    There   has 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  361 

been  no  way  provided  in  which  any  hearings  can  be  had.  There, 
is  a  little  pamphlet  submitted  to  the  people,  which  will  grow 
in  years  to  a  very  large  book  at  the  rate  it  is  now  growing, 
where  these  things  are  discussed  in  a  very  brief  way.  The 
people  are  to  make  up  their  opinion  without  the  benefit  of 
committees,  or  testimony,  or  hearings,  and  they  have  encour- 
aged the  use  of  this  new  toy,  so  they  at  present  take  some 
interest  in  this  matter,  as  evidenced  by  the  forty  laws  now 
pending  there. 

But,  Gentlemen,  you  passed  a  primary  law  in  New  Hamp- 
shire because  you  said  people  did  not  take  interest  enough 
to  go  to  their  caucuses,  and  under  that  primary  law  you  now 
get  out  but  a  small  fraction  of  your  voters,  and,  if  yqu  will 
observe  the  action  of  the  primary,  you  will  find  in  the  future, 
as  in  the  case  of  your  old-time  caucuses,  a  less  and  less  num- 
ber of  voters  will  take  enough  interest  in  the  primary  to  go 
and  vote  to  select  men  who  are  to  be  your  candidates;  and  for 
a  very  good  reason,  and  that  is,  that  out  of  the  men  who  are 
born  there  is  but  a  small  percentage  of  those  who  take  in- 
terest enough  in  public  affairs  to  go  ahead  and  post  themselves 
on  any  question  and  qualify  themselves  to  act.  So,  too,  you 
will  find  that,  as  a  less  number  are  availing  themselves  of 
primaries,  so  a  less  and  less  number  would  act  under  initiative 
and  referendum,  and  by  and  by  you  will  have  laws  passed  by 
minorities,  and  you  will  have  destroyed  representative  govern- 
ment founded  upon  the  will  of  the  majority,  and  the  majority 
will  no  longer  rule. 

Now  I  hold.  Gentlemen,  that  this  question  is  a  question  of 
a  revolutionary  change  in  the  form  of  our  government.  We 
have  got  at  the  present  time  pure  and  simple  representative 
government,  where  the  men  who  do  your  work  can  do  it  as 
honestly  as  you  people  can  do  it  at  home.  You  must  bear  in 
mind.  Gentlemen,  that  a  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  it;3 
fountain,  and  the  representatives  you  send  to  this  body,  or 
to  the  legislature,  come  from  yourselves.  If  you  do  not  and 
cannot  choose  the  right  men  to  come  here  and  represent  you, 
it  is  your  own  fault;  it  is  the  fault  of  the  electorate  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  if  they  do  not  put  men  in  the  legis- 
lature of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  who  will  honestly,  fear- 
lessly and  thoroughly  represent  them.  And  you  know,  Gentle- 
men, that  if  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  would 
insist  on  being  represented  in  that  way,  and  people  of  other 
states,  too,  you  would  find  no  trouble  arising  which  would 
need    the    initiative   and    referendum    to    cure   it.       Gentlemen, 


362    JouitNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

what  reason  have  you  to  think  you  can  do  any  better  legislat- 
ing- than  the  men  you  choose? 

Gentlemen,  you  must  bear  in  mind  that  in  a  great  country 
like  ours, — with  a  population  increasing  as  ours  is  from  immi- 
gration,— we  have  been  getting  men  into  this  country  so  fast 
that  it  has  been  almost  impossible  to  assimilate  and  make  them 
such  citizens  as  we  wish  them  to  be,  and  hence  there  have 
been  some  things  done  in  legislature  of  which  we  complain. 
I  say  your  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  your  fountain,  but 
it  does  not  follow  that  we  need  revolutionary  methods  to  cure 
it.  I  say,  too,  you  degrade  your  legislators  into  a  set  of  pup- 
pets when  you  require  them  to  come  here,  either  under  pledges, 
which  is  one  of  the  great  features  in  this  legislation  in  Oregon, 
or  under  notice  of  a  referendum.  You  pledge  the  legislator 
before  he  gets  to  the  place  where  he  is  to  act  for  you,  and 
where  he  is  supposed  to  act  to  the  best  of  his  judgment,  and 
when  he  was  sent  for  that  purpose,  and  then  say  to  him 
that  all  he  does  must  be  reviewed  by  you  in  a  referendum. 
You  degrade  him  by  this  process. 

Now,  the  next  thing  you  propose  to  do  is  to  degrade  hira 
still  further  by  saying,  "Yes,  you  shall  go  there  and  repre- 
sent us,  but  what  you  do  shall  not  be  the  law;  we  do  not  dare 
to  trust  you  for  that,  but  what  you  do  we  are  going  to  take 
hold  of,  and  see  whether  we  approve  of  it."  Why  not  abolish 
your  House,  and  why  not  abolish  your  Senate?  Why  not  abol- 
ish this  system  of  government?  Now,  Gentlemen,  you  may 
think,  when  I  say  that  there  is  revolution  in  this,  that  there  is 
something  extravagant  in  what  I  say,  but,  Gentlemen,  in  the 
state  of  Oregon,  at  the  next  election,  they  are  to  pass  over 
forty  things.  The  first  I  see  in  the  list  is  this  article  among 
the  forty:  A  new  Constitution,  abolishing  the  present  state 
government,  and  substituting  an  entirely  new  form  of  govern- 
ment; and  that  is  revolutionary.  That  is  what  you  are  going 
into  here.  Don't  you  think  you  can  stop  here  with  the  initi- 
ative and  the  referendum?  Just  as  sure  as  you  adopt  that 
thing  now  you  will  next  be  asked  to  adopt  the  recall.  One 
great  body  at  Chicago,  in  Convention  today,  is  divided  on  that 
matter  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  hard  to  say  which  part  will 
be  in  the  majority.  There  are  men  there  who  are  just  as 
anxious  to  have  the  recall  as  others  here  are  to  have  the 
initiative  and  referendum.  There  are  men  who  would  be  fight- 
ing for  it  here,  just  as  I  am  against  it  here  today. 

I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  socialistic  democracy,  which  yo»i 
are   going   to   establish    with    initiative   and   referendum;    that 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  363 

will  be  the  first  step  when  you  abandon  the  present  form  of 
g-overnment,  and  after  you  get  the  socialistic  democracy,  then 
will  come  socialism,  pure  and  simple,  and,  if  I  am  able  to 
reason  out  what  has  made  this  people  of  ours  different  from 
other  peoples,  and  what  has  made  civilization,  it  is  because 
men  have  got  together  and  acted  reasonably  and  under  fixed 
laws  to  insure  some  stability,  and  by  choosing  men  to  repre- 
sent them  in  making  such  laws.  If  we  should  lapse  into  so- 
cialism, it  will  be  a  move  backward  towards  the  state  of 
savagery  from  which  we  emerged  when  we  began  to  establish 
civilization  in  this  world;  for  socialism  is  only  possible  by 
drawing  men  to  one  dead  level  and  by  taking  from  them  the 
enlightened  selfish  principle,  which  has  proved  the  one  great 
creative  engine  in  the  world, — enlightened  self-interest;  the 
great  stimulus  of  men  to  energy  and  thrift  will  have  been 
removed,  and  the  attempt  to  form  one  mould  and  then  flux 
all  men  in  one  great  melting  pot,  and  out  of  it  to  draw  the 
material  to  form  all  men  alike  in  one  mould,  will  be  a  tre- 
mendous failure.  The  protection  of  the  individual  by  written, 
stable  Constitution  and  laws  has  led  to  our  present  civilization. 
To  discourage  individualism  and  to  adopt  socialism  is  to  be- 
gin the  journey  backward  to  savagery. 

Mr.  Davis  of  New  Ipswich. — ^Gentlemen,  we  have  heard  so  much 
about  representative  government  that  I  really  want  to  say  a 
word  or  two  about  it  myself.  I  am  not  against  representative 
government.  Oh,  no!  but  let's  see  whom  it  has  represented  for 
the  last  hundred  years.  We  must  judge  it  from  a  monetary 
standpoint,  of  course,  because  we  have  spent  more  money  and 
time  in  this  Convention  protecting  money  than  anything  else,  si 
money  must  be  the  standard.  Now,  Gentlemen,  the  facts  and 
figures  are  as  follows:  One  hundred  years  ago,  when  this 
country  consisted  of  but  comparatively  a  few  millions  of 
people,  the  wealth  of  the  country  was  controlled  by  over  120,- 
000  people.  Today,  Gentlemen,  when  we  approach  100,000,- 
000  people,  the  majority  of  the  wealth,  the  entire  wealth,  mind 
you,  is  controlled  by  less  than  20,000  people.  Now,  whom  has 
your  representative  government  represented,  the  individual  or 
all  of  the  people?  I  came  here.  Gentlemen,  instructed  to  con- 
sider the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number,  and  if  I  am 
proud  of  one  thing  it  is  that  I  stand  for  the  best  of  the  people, 
whom  I  represent  and  with  whom  I  live.  Now,  Gentlemen, 
this  is  not  a  sentimental  question.  This  is  not  a  question 
for  which  we  must  go  back  to  our  forefathers.  Just  because 
our  grandfather  carried  a  brick  in  his  hat, — God  bless  him!  — 


364    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

no  reason  why  we  should.  It  is  a  business  matter,  and  we 
should  consider  it  as  such.  A  man  who  holds  one  of  your  most 
responsible  state  positions  said  to  me  recently,  "Davis,  what 
was  good  enough  for  my  grandfather  was  not  good  enough  for 
my  father;  what  was  good  enough  for  my  father  is  not  good 
enough  for  me;  and  what  is  good  enough  for  me  is  not  good 
enough  for  my  children."  Now,  he  was  right  there.  With  all 
due  respect  to  our  forefathers,  I  honor  them  and  I  am  proud 
of  them,  but  what  was  good  enough  for  them  is  not  good 
enough  for  me;  neither  is  it  good  enough  for  you. 

Now  as  to  the  initiative  and  referendum,  I  want  to  talk  to 
you  about  that  as  a  practical  business  man.  The  business  of 
this  state  is  the  most  important  business  in  the  state,  and  you 
are  here  to  represent  it  as  business  men.  How  many  of  you 
manufacturers  would  run  your  boilers  without  a  safety  valve? 
Many?  I  think  not.  How  many  of  us  would  drive  motor  cars 
without  an  emergency  brake?  It  costs  us  nothing  practically; 
it  is  there;  we  may  never  use  it,  but  when  we  need  it  we  want 
it,  and  though  something  extra,  it  is  a  mighty  good  thing  to 
have.  If  you  neglect  this  opportunity  to  protect  your  people 
as  you  should,  with  the  initiative  and  referendum,  yotr  will 
regret  it.  I  know  it.  From  three  different  towns  the  con- 
stituents said  to  me,  "Davis,  what  do  you  mean  by  letting  them 
vote  dowm  that  referendum?  We  want  a  chance  to  say  what 
we  want  to  do  about  it?"  That  is  what  they  want.  I  tell 
you  honestly,  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  you  will  make  the 
greatest  error  if  you  do  not  allow  them  to  vote  on  it, — do  not 
submit  it  to  them.  We  are  not  a  legislative  body,  we  are  not 
the  tribunal;  it  is  for  us  to  be  fair  and  just  merely,  and  when 
the  matter  is  close,  let  them  decide,  and  I  hope  you  will  do  so. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord.— Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  this  is  a  proposition  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the 
electorate.  It  is  a  proposition  to  change  the  fundamental 
structure  of  the  governmental  system  under  which  we  have 
been  living  and  governing,  up  to  the  present  time.  Is  it  wise 
to  make  this  radical  change  in  our  organic  law?  Is  it  prudent? 
Is  the  proposition  practicable?  What,  in  fact,  when  analyzed, 
is  this  proposition  found  to  be?  We  hear  much,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  with  reference  to  remanding  to  the  people  theii 
powers,  or  enlarging  the  powers  of  the  people.  Who  are  tha 
people?  The  population  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
under  the  last  census,  was  approximately  430,000.  Are  all 
those  the  people,  within  the  meaning  of  the  term  as  it  is  now 
used   and  understood,  in   a  political   sense?    If  so,   they,  that 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  365 

is,  this  entire  population,  are  not  permitted  or  empowered  to 
participate  in  government,  except  through  a  selected  few,  the 
electorate,  the  voters.  The  voters  comprise  about  one  fifth  of 
the  population.  They  have  been  selected,  through  a  variety  of 
laws,  from  time  to  time,  which  designated  who  the  voters 
should  be.  Going  back  to  the  time  when  Massachusetts  and 
New  Hampshire  comprised  one  colony,  or  was  governed  by  one 
system,  one  authority,  to  be  a  voter,  one  had  to  have  the  cer- 
tificate of  his  church  membership  a^d  his  good  character  from 
the  local  clergyman.  That  rule,  or  requirement,  existed  for 
a  few  years  after  New  Hampshire  resumed  her  position  as  a 
separate  colony  in  1679.  Then  there  was  attached  to  the  quali- 
fication of  the  voter  the  requirement  that  he  should  have  prop- 
erty. This  qualification,  or  requisite,  was  subsequently  re- 
moved, leaving  simply  the  age  limit,  the  naturalization  and 
the  birthright  as  the  essentials.  There  are  now  only  about 
one  fifth  of  the  population  who  are  endowed  with  the  privilege 
of  voting.  These  voters,  this  part  of  the  population,  thus 
privileged  are  really  the  agents  and  trustees  in  whom  is  de- 
posited the  authority  and  right  to  represent  the  whole  popu- 
lation. Ours  is  a  representative  government.  The  voters  are 
authorized,  and  only  authorized,  with  reference  to  state  mat- 
ters to  elect  representatives  through  whom  the  state's  affairs 
are  administered,  and  laws  are  enacted  for  the  government  of 
the  people  and  the  protection  of  their  rights.  We  have,  since 
the  foundation  of  our  government,  had  the  initiative  and 
referendum,  in  their  broadest  sense,  in  the  towns,  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  our  local  affairs;  and  never  have  the  towns 
abandoned  these  privileges  until  their  populations,  respectively, 
reached  limits  or  points  where  it  became  impracticable  for 
them  to  consider  directly  and  materially,  in  the  town,  their 
own  concerns.  When  it  became  impracticable  to  consider  in 
town  meeting  their  own  affairs  intelligently, — the  affairs  about 
which  they  were  fully  informed  and  in  which  they  are  per- 
sonally and  directly  interested, — they  inaugurated  the  city  gov- 
ernment plan  of  representation,  the  only  plan  practicable  for 
the  larger  population.  So  that  now  in  this  state  we  have 
eleven  municipalities  governed  by  the  representative  plan,  gov- 
erned as  cities.  That  is,  eleven  of  the  towns  of  the  state,  on 
account  of  the  size  of  their  population,  had  to  abandon  the 
town  system,  the  democratic  system,  and  adopt  the  city  or 
representative  system.  These  towns  had  to  make  the  change, 
or  did  make  the  change,  from  the  town  to  the  representative 
system  because  it  was  found  impracticable  to  do  the  work  of  a 


366    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

large  population  thorugh  the  town  or  democratic  method; 
that  is,  in  a  meeting  in  which  all  the  voters  could  be  present 
and  participate. 

Since  the  larger  towns,  on  account  of  the  size  and  the 
population  thereof,  have  found  it  impracticable  to  administer 
practically  and  intelligently  through  the  town  system,  where 
all  could  participate,  the  affairs  of  the  town,  is  it  reasonable 
to  expect  that  the  people  of  the  entire  state  can,  in  their  ag- 
gregate capacity,  or  acting  simultaneously,  in  the  different 
sections,  deal  directly,  more  intelligently,  and  more  practically 
than  can  the  smaller  population  of  the  cities,  who  found  that 
they  could  not,  on  account  of  the  size  of  the  population,  in- 
telligently and  practically  deal  with  their  local  affairs?  Stated 
in  another  way,  this  proposition,  in  effect,  is  to  create  another 
and  an  entirely  distinct,  independent  legislative  body.  At  the 
present  time,  under  our  present  Constitution,  the  legislative 
power  of  this  state  is  vested  in  a  Senate  and  House  of  ReprK>- 
sentatives,  over  whose  action  the  Governor  has  a  veto.  Under 
the  proposed  plan,  the  majority  of  the  electorate,  that  is,  the 
majority  of  the  voters,  are  to  be  endowed  with  the  power  of 
overruling  the  action  of  the  legislature,  and  avoiding  or  escaxj- 
ing  entirely  the  veto  power  of  the   Governor. 

This  method  of  dealing  with  public  affairs  is  not  new;  it  is 
old.  It  was  employed  by  the  ancients, — and  it  failed.  Under 
its  operation,  or  use,  by  the  ancients,  they  witnessed  the  end 
of  their  government  and  the  loss  of  their  rights  and  liberties. 
With  a  knowledge  of  that  historical  fact,  the  fathers  who 
founded  this  and  the  earlier  Constitutions  of  this  country  were 
familiar.  They  had  the  power  and  might  have  adopted,  as  a 
form  of  government,  a  pure  democracy.  But  they  rejected  it; 
and  Jefferson  reflected  the  voice  and  views  of  his  associates 
as  well  as  himself  when  he  said  that  the  people  had  at  lai^t 
found  the  only  practicable  method  of  preserving  their  rights 
and  liberties,  namely,  through  a  representative  government  se- 
lected by  themselves.  Jefferson,  if  living  today,  as  was  previ- 
ously suggested  during  this  debate,  would  be  opposed  to  this 
proposition,  to  this  radical  innovation.  He  knew,  from  his 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  history  of  governments,  the  de- 
structive effect  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  with  respect 
to  protecting  the  rights  of  the  people.  He  knew  from  his 
mastery  of  the  science  of  government,  through  intelligent  and 
thorough  study  of  the  history  of  governments,  how  the 
people's  rights  and  liberties  had  been  lost  instead  of  pre- 
served   through    the    use    of   the   initiative   and    referendum    as 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  367 

a  method  of  government  by  the  electorate  in  the  older  govern- 
ments of  the  world.  He  and  his  associates,  having  such 
knowledge,  sought  to  prevent  and  provide  against  a  recur- 
rence of  such  result  to  the  people  of  this  country  by  adopting 
the  present  representative  form  of  government.  And  to  this 
form  we  should  adhere.  This  system  is  practicable.  It  is 
simple.  It  is  fully  safeguarded.  Switzerland,  they  tell  us,  has 
the  initiative  and  referendum.  Switzerland,  however,  uses  this 
method  now  only  in  its  local  concerns, — only  in  and  for  the 
government  of  its  subdivisions,  corresponding  to  our  towns. 
Its  use  has  been  practically  disregarded  because  it  is  found  to 
be  inapracticable,  so  far  as  general  legislation  is  concerned; 
and  its  use,  at  the  present  time,  is  confined  to  those  subjects 
in  which  the  people  are  locally,  directly  interested,  and  in 
which  they  are  fully  informed.  So  that,  even  if  we  were  to 
summon  the  experience  of  Switzerland  to  determine  our  action, 
her  people  tod^y  are  practically  limiting  the  system  of  initi- 
ative and  referendum  to  local  affairs,  leaving  the  management 
and  direction  of  general  affairs  to  their  representative  body, 
corresponding  to  our  state  legislatures  and  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States.  This  has  been  done  because  the  other 
method  has  been  found  to  be  impracticable.  Therefore  we 
had  better  adhere  to  our  representative  form  of  government, 
that  form  through  which  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people 
have  been  thus  far  so  well  protected  and  safeguarded.  And, 
guided  by  our  experience  in  the  past,  we  have  every  reason 
to  confidently  expect  that  an  honest,  intelligent,  upright  dis- 
charge of  their  duty  by  the  electorate,  the  voters,  will  continue 
to  secure  and  protect  the  rights  of  the  people.  Therefore  let 
us  stand  by  this  system,  which  has,  by  practical  experience, 
demonstrated  its  utility  and  capacity  to  efficiently  and  effect- 
ively protect  the  lives,  liberties  and  possessions  of  the  people. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  moved  that  the  Convention  be  in  re- 
cess for  one  hour  and  that  a  vote  be  taken  on  the  question 
fifty  minutes  after  recess. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 
After  Recess. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey,  to 
substitute  the  minority  report  for  that  of  the  majority, — 


368  Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Abbott  of  Wolfeboro.—^ir.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  am  the  other  member  or  delegate  from  Wolfe- 
boro,  and,  like  my  friend  from  Jaffrey,  not  in  favor  of  this 
resolution.  However,  I  did  not  think  it  would  be  necessary 
for  me,  coming-  from  the  town  of  Wolfeboro,  to  do  any  talking 
whatever  before  this  body,  but  I  have  sat  here  for  two  days 
and  listened  to  the  gentleman  from  Pittsfield  dragging  un- 
warrantably, and  I  believe  unnecessarily,  the  great  and  good 
order  of  the  Grange  .into  this  discussion.  I  think  I  have  some 
right  to  speak,  as  a  member  of  that  body,  as  I  am  master  of 
the  Grange  in  my  town,  and  I  want  to  say  a  few  words  to  you 
in  regard  to  the  Grange  in  this  matter. 

A  good  many  of  you  will  remember  that  thirty  or  forty 
years  ago  the  Grange  was  composed  wholly  of  farmers  and 
their  wives,  or  nearly  so,  and  a  resolution,  a  demand,  a  de- 
pire,  a  request  coming  from  a  body  of  that  nature  deserved 
great  attention  and  consideration.  At  the  present  time,  how- 
ever, at  least  twenty-five  percent  of  that  order  is  composed 
of  boys  and  girls  from  fourteen  to  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
and  I  would  like  to  ask  if  you  think  the  votes  of  boys  an! 
girls  should  have  any  great  weight  before  a  body  of  men  such 
as  is  assembled  here?  I  have  heard  this  matter  of  thirty  thou- 
sand Grangers, — that  thirty  thousand  in  round  numbers  means, 
of  course,  men,  women  and  children.  Now,  in  regard  to  the 
matter  before  the  Convention.  There  was  sent  down  to  our 
Grange,  and  I  doubt  not  to  every  subordinate  Grange  in  thig 
state,  a  statement  that  the  Grange  was  in  favor  of  this,  and 
a  request,  some  of  you  might  call  it  a  command, — you  can 
call  it  a  very  earnest  suggestion  at  least, — that  every  sub- 
ordinate Grange  was  supposed  to  support  this  resolution,  but 
there  is  one  member  who  declines  to  accept  any  such  sug- 
gestion. The  matter  came  up,  and  out  of  over  eighty  present, 
in  a  membership  in  the  neighborhood  of  200,  there  were  six 
who  voted  for  this  resolution,  and  I  would  like  to  say  to  the 
gentleman  from  Pittsfield  that  if  that  is  a  fair  vote  of  the 
rest  of  the  subordinate  Granges  in  New  Hampshire,  his  armv 
of  thirty  thousand  has  dwindled  to  a  corporal's  guard. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  Grange  as  a  body  should  attempt 
to  hold  the  organization  as  a  club  over  the  heads  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention,  or  of  any  legislature,  and  I  believ", 
and  earnestly  believe,  and  say  it  in  the  interests  of  thai 
order,  that  the  sooner  it  quits  meddling  with  everything  that 
comes  up  before  the  people,  just  so  much  stronger  and  more 
lasting  it  will  be.    It  is  indicative.  Gentlemen,  the  statement 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  369 

of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsfield  of  his  thirty  thousand' 
Grangers  backing  this  resolution,  of  what  these  thirty  thou- 
sand might  attempt  to  do  if  this  referendum  was  in  force  in 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  It  shows  you  the  power  that 
some  secret  society  might  have  to  carry  out  its  ends,  be  they 
good  or  be  they  ill.  Therefore,  Gentlemen,  I  hope  there  is 
no  member  of  this  Convention,  whether  he  belongs  to  the 
great  order  of  the  Grange  or  not,  who  will  be  deterred  from 
Toting  as  his  conscience  dictates,  regardless  of  anything  that 
has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsfield,  speaking  for 
the  Grange. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Peterboro. — I  made  a  statement  last  week  when 
a  similar  proposition  was  before  this  Conimittee,  in  regard 
to  the  vote  of  California  upon  bills  referred  to  the  people. 
That  was  questioned  by  the  gentleman  from  Jaffrey,  Mr. 
Duncan.  I  have  taken  pains  since  then  to  go  into  the  library 
in  this  city,  and  have  in  my  hand  a  compilation  of  votes  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  in  1908.  I  have  thirteen  amendments 
recorded  here.  On  not  one  of  the  thirteen  did  one-half  vote 
who  voted  for  President  at  that  same  time.  For  President 
in  1908,  386,597  voted.  One-half  of  that  number  would  be 
193,298,  and,  of  these  thirteen  amendments  submitted  to  the 
people,  not  one  of  them  received,  negative  and  affirmative, 
one-half  of  those  votes  cast  for  President.  I  simply  make  this 
statement  to  place  myself  correctly  upon  the  record  and  in 
the  memory  of  these  people  present. 

Two  years  later,  twenty-three  amendments  were  submitted 
to  the  people  of  California.  I  haven't  the  record  here  be- 
cause it  has  not  been  printed  in  permanent  form,  but  I  have 
it  in  pamphlet  form,  and  not  one  of  those  twenty-three  amend- 
ments received  half  of  the  votes  of  the  state.  I  have  looked 
at  those  figures,  and  I  find  that  every  amendment  which  was 
passed  was  passed  by  less  than  twenty-five  percent  of  the 
Toters  of  California  at  that  time. 

Now,  there  are  one  or  two  phases  of  this  bill  which  I  wish 
to  refer  to.  One  is  the  initiative.  Upon  the  petition  of  eight 
percent  of  the  voters  at  the'  last  election  for  Governor,  a 
proposition  can  be  presented  to  be  voted  upon  by  the  people. 
When  presented  it  cannot  be  amended,  and  it  cannot  be 
changed,  but  must  be  submitted  in  the  exact  form  in  which 
it  comes  from  the  petitioners.  I  think  that  is  one  of  the  most 
radical  amendments  that  can  be  made.  There  is  hardly  a 
measure  introduced  into  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire, 
•or    before    this    Convention,    that   w^ill    stand   that    test.    They 


370    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

come  here,  go  before  a  Committee,  they  are  ameiided,  they 
are  changed  so  as  to  affect  the  meaning  of  them  radically. 
When  you  place  it  within  the  power  of  eight  percent  of  the 
voters  to  draft  such  a  bill  and  present  it  to  the  people,  and 
let  twenty-five  percent  of  all  the  voters  pass  it,  without 
change  and  without  amendment,  you  do  something  which  is 
radical,  something  which  is  unjust,  and  something  which  is 
not  called  for.  A  referendum,  a  recall  and  initiative  is  in  some 
respects  the  same.  It  is  a  move  in  the  wrong  direction;  it  is 
a  move  to  undermine  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire;  it 
is  a  move  to  set  aside  and  place  the  Constitution  of  New  Hamp- 
shire in  the  same  position  that  you  place  the  laws  of  New 
Hampshire,  so  that  it  can  be  changed  session  by  session  by 
the  legislature,  in  the  same  way  that  the  laws  can  be  changed. 
It   is  placing  the  Constitution  and   laws  .upon  the  same   basis. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  have  no  disposition  to  question  the  figures  of 
the  gentleman  from  Peterborough.  I  have  no  doubt  that  they 
are  absolutely  correct,  byt  they  are  no  argument  at  all  against 
the  initiative  and  referendum.  Why?  Because  the  initiative 
and  referendum  were  not  adopted  in  California  until  1911. 
The  figures  which  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  quotes  are 
arguments  against  our  present  method  of  amending  the  Consti- 
tution, and  not  against  the  initiative  and  referendum.  Cal- 
ifornia, up  to  October,  1911,  amended  the  Constitution  the 
same  as  we  do  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  the  figures 
quoted  by  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough  relate  to  the  exact 
situation  which  we  have  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and 
not  to  the  initiative  and  referendum. 

He  alludes  to  the  difficulty  of  amending  propositions  sub- 
mitted by  the  initiative.  I  could  point  out  to  you,  if  I  had  time, 
where  this  is  an  advantage  and  not  a  disadvantage.  Numerous 
measures  are  submitted  to  the  legislature  in  very  good  form, 
and  there  jokers  are  inserted  in  them,  and  sometimes  they  are 
emasculated  by  amendments.  I  say  to  you,  it  were  oftentimes 
much  better  that  a  measure  should  be  submitted  to  the  people 
in  the  form  in  which  its  sponsors  asked  for  it  to  be  submitted, 
than  to  allow  it  to  be  emasculated  by  members  of  the  legis- 
lature. 

I  was  rather  amused  this  morning  when  the  gentleman  from 
Haverhill  informed  us  that  he  was  opposed  to  this  proposition, 
inasmuch  as  I  had  previously  noted  in  the  Concord  Evening  Moni- 
tor a  clipping  from  the  WoodmiUe  Neivs,  of  which  he  is  editor, 
in  which  it  says:   "The  people  are  the  court  of  final  resort,  and 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  371 

in  these  matters  of  grave  importance  the  people,  as  a  wnole, 
may  be  safely  trusted."  What  does  that  mean  but  initiative 
and  referendum? 

A  gentleman  on  the  floor  of  this  Convention  said  this  morn- 
ing that  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 
was  to  establish  a  pure  democracy.  I  deny  that  fact.  I  say  it 
could  be  possible  to  establish  a  pure  democracy  by  the  initi- 
ative and  referendum.  I  say  this,  too:  If  I  should  go  to  the 
station  at  Concord  and  take  a  train  which  might  be  going  to' 
Boston,  it  would  be  no  sign  that  I  intended  to  go  to  Boston. 
I  might  get  off  at  Mancliester  or  Xashua  or  Lowell,  or  any 
other  place,  and  if  I  didn't  know  enough  to  get  off  where  I 
wanted  to,  I  ought  to  be  carried  through  to  the  destination, 
and  I  believe  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  are 
competent  to  decide  where  they  want  to  get  off. 

Gentlemen  say  this  is  revolution.  Revolution  is  a  proud  word 
in  the  history  of  the  American  government.  The  men  whom 
we  delight  to  honor  are  revolutionists.  George  Washington, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  Thomas  Jefferson,  John  Hancock,  John 
Adams  and  Samuel  Adams  bear  the  proud  title  of  revolutionists, 
and,  if  it  is  revolution  to  advocate  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
I  am  proud  to  be  called  a  revolutionist.  I  suppose  every  man 
who  has  advocated  new  ideas  has  been  called  a  revolutionist. 
I  suppose  Abraham  Lincoln,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
southern  slaveholder,  was  a  revolutionist  of  the  deepest  dye, 
but  I  am  proud  to  rank  myself  with  Abraham  Lincoln  as  a 
revolutionist.  Lincoln  said  this  should  be  a  government  by  th"» 
people,  of  the  people  and  for  the  people.  I  am  content  to 
rest  the  case  on  that. 

A  gentleman  said  this  morning  that  this  is  establishing  a 
fourth  House.  Shouldn't  we  have  a  fourth  House  if  the  fourth 
House  is  to  be  the  state  of  New  Hampshire?  Whose  govern- 
ment is  this  but  the  government  of  the  people  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire?  They  are  the  ones  who  have  the  final  say 
on  everything  we  do  here  today,  and  I  believe  they  should  have 
the  final  say  on  the  action  of  the  legislature.  The  question 
to  be  re-echoed  from  these  old  Granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire 
is  this:  "Shall  the  people  rule?"  And  the  answer  that  is  going 
to  be  re-echoed  from  these  old  Granite  Hjlls  of  New  Hampshire 
is,  "The  people  shall  rule  through  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, and  this  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people;  and 
for  the  people  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth."     I  thank  you. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Lan^aff. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  want 
to  call  particular  attention  to  the  argument  made  by  the  gen- 


372      JOURNAI*   OF    CONSTITUTJONAL    CONVENTION. 

tleman  from  Laconia,  an  argument  to  my  mind  so-  surprising 
that  I  could  hardly  believe  my  own  ears,  and  I  went  to  the 
stenographer  and  got  an  exact  copy  of  his  words.  He  sayp, 
*'I  am  opposed  to  the  initiative  and  referendum  because  it 
establishes  the  fourth  House  in  the  state.  We  already  have 
three,  the  Senate,  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the  third 
House."  I  wonder  how  many  men  in  this  body  understood  what 
he  meant  by  the  term,  "the  third  House,"  one  of  the  legisla- 
tive bodies  we  have  had  in  this  state  for  years.  The  third 
House  is  the  lobby,  composed  of  agents  and  attorneys  of  the 
special  interests  who  have  been  aroifnd  every  session  of  this 
legislature  for  the  last  thirty  years,  and  will  be  for  the  next 
thirty  years,  endeavoring  to  control  legislation  in  the  interests 
of  the  special  class  they  are  paid  to  serve.  As  long  as  we 
have  a  third  House,  as  long  as  we  have  this  private,  secret 
body  of  men,  who  are  here,  the  ablest  men  in  the  state, — and 
I  don't  blame  them  for  coming  here,  I  don't  blame  the  special 
interests  for  having  people  here  to  protect  them, — but  as  long 
as  we  have  that  secret,  private  body  which  seeks  to  control  our 
legislatures,  and  especially  our  Senate,  we  need  to  cantrol  that 
third  House, — the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to 
legislate  after  them. 

Why,  that  is  the  chief  argument,  the  chief  reason,  the  chief 
cause  for  the  demand  for  the  initiative  and  the  referendum, 
that  we  can  control  this  secret  third  House.  I  wish,  Sir,  we 
had  a  public  journal  in  which  were  recorded  the  votes,  the  dis- 
cussions and  the  decisions  of  this  third  House,  as  we  have  pub- 
lic records  of  our  House  andi  our  Senate.  If  it  wouldn't  make 
absolutely  certain  and  absolutely  sure  the  adoption  of  the  initi- 
ative and  referendum  in  this  state,  nothing  under  Heaven  ever 
would. 

One  more  suggestion:  The  gentlemen  say  that  the  ordinary 
man,  the  ordinary  voter,  is  not  capable  of  deciding  these  quos 
tions,  that  he  does  not  take  an  interest  in  them.  Now,  there 
is  some  truth  in  that  suggestion.  I  have  been  surprised  my- 
self when  I  went  home  from  some  session  to  see  how  little 
interest  citizens  of  my  town  took  in  what  the  legislature  wad 
doing.  There  is  a  reason  for  that.  Men  take  an  interest  in 
and  become  fitted  to  do  those  things  they  are  required  to  do, 
and  the  very  fact  that  at  present  our  people  have  so  little  real 
control  over  the  legislature,  and  are  so  far  removed  from  it, 
is  clearly  the  reason  why  they  take  so  little  interest  in  these 
questions.  If  these  questions  were  put  up  to  them  to  decide, 
discuss  and  argue,  they  would  take  an  interest,  and  we  should 
get  a  good  decision. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  373 

We  have  been  carried  back  to  ancient  history  all  over*  the 
world.  We  have  been  told  this  thing-  is  a  failure  in  Switzer- 
land, a  success  in  Switzerland',  and  a  success  in  Oregon.  We 
have  been  told  that  it  was  the  recall  that  ruined  Egypt,  the 
referendum  that  brought  about  the  fall  of  Rome,  and  the  initi- 
ative that  destroyed  the  democracy  of  Greece.  I  say,  with  all 
due  respect  to  the  eminent  historians  who  put  that  argument 
up  here,  that  every  man  who  has  studied  the  history  of  Rome 
knows  what  caused  the  downfall  of  the  republic  of  Rome.  The 
unequal  distribution  of  wealth  and  unequal  distribution  of  po- 
litical power  corrupted  the  Roman  empire.  Luxury  corrupted 
its  government  and  poverty  corrupted  its  lower  classes,  and 
when  barbarians  came  there  was  nothing  to  stop  them.  And 
the  only  way  civilization  can  protect  itself  from  the  danger 
of  unequal  distribution  of  w-ealth  and  political  power  is  to 
give  to  all  the  people  the  full  and  final  decision  of  what  the 
government  shall  be,  and  what  measures  shall  be  enacted  for 
the  public  welfare. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  it  has  been  stated  here  that  the  third  House  is  a 
very  dangerous  element  in  connection  with  our  present  system 
of  legislation.  I  do  not  agree  with  that  statement.  I  do  not 
like  corrupting  influences  about  the  legislature,  whether  they 
are  in  favor  of  special  interests,  corporations,  or  individuals, 
but,  under  our  present  Constitution,  we  have  the  right  to  pe- 
tition this  body;  we  have  a  right  as  citizens  to  come  down  to 
the  legislature  and  interview  its  various  members  and  explain 
to  them  what  we  and  the  people  at  home  want.  Now,  in  one 
breath  this  gentleman  advocates  the  people  speaking;  in  an- 
other he  proposes  to  gag  them.  He  says  you  may  stay  at  home 
and  vote,  but  must  keep  away  from  the  General  Court.  I  main- 
tain that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  voter  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  who  has  any  interest,  when  the  legislature  is  in  ses- 
sion to  come  down  here  and  see  the  people  who  are  making 
the  laws,  call  it  third  House,  manipulation  or  anything  else. 
Such  a  course  is  not  only  proper,  but  in  line  of  public  dtity. 
At  the  present  time  we  have  a  right  to  petition  the  General 
Court.  Do  you  know  of  any  body  of  citizens  who  ever  pe- 
titioned the  General  Court  who  were  not  respectfully  heard  and 
their  arguments  considered?  Are  we  not  thus  amply  protected? 
The  public  who  are  interested  bring  their  petitions,  interview 
their  representatives,  have  hearings,  and  then  leave  the  matter 
to  be  threshed  out  in  the  House  and  Senate.  I  submit  to  you, 
Gentlemen,  that  this  is  the  very  best  way  we  could  possibly 
devise. 


374   Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

We  have  laws  on  our  statute  books  requiring  everybody  wlio 
appears  here  in  the  interest  of  a  corporation  to  register  pub- 
licly, so  we  all  may  know  who  A,  B  and  C  stand  for  when  they 
come  before  any  Committee. 

Speaking  of  fear  about  getting  started,  this  gentleman,  Mr. 
Duncan,  says  a  man  who  starts  on  a  train  down  here  ought 
to  know  enough  to  get  off  when  he  has  gone  far  enough,  but 
that  gentleman  must  know  that  there  are  a  whole  lot  of  trains 
that  don't  stop  at  every  station,  and  if  you  get  off  at  these  yoa 
have  got  to  jump,  and  hundreds  of  men  have  lost  their  lives  by 
jumping. 

Abraham  Lincoln!  That  man's  name  has  been  taken  in  vain 
more  in  the  last  six  months  than  that  of  any  man  who  ever  trod 
this  earth.  Abraham  Lincoln  stood  for  the  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people,  on  the  Constitution, 
He  never  said  anything  derogatory  to  the  Constitution.  He 
was  not  a  revolutionist,  and  you,  Mr.  Duncan,  can't  put  him 
on  your  list  of  authorities.  Abraham  Lincoln  stands,  and 
always  will  stand,  as  the  greatest  man  of  peace  this  country 
ever  produced.  Bringing  in  these  old  saints  to  back  up  this 
sort  of  clap-trap  makes  my  blood  boil. 

Now,  about  this  measure.  My  soul  and  body!  Have  you  read 
it?  Down  in  the  87th  line  they  strike  at  .Article  4  in  the  Con- 
stitution and  would  virtually  cut  the  heart  out  of  that.  Now, 
Article  4  of  the  Constitution  contains  the  provisions  for  estab- 
lishing Courts  and  regulating  offenses.  Right  here  they  pro- 
pose to  get  in  their  first  attack  on  the  Courts.  Then  in  respect 
to  Article  5.  It  says:  "Amend  Article  5  of  Part  Second  by  add- 
ing at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  Except  as  provided  in 
Article  2."  Article  2  is  this  proposed  amendment.  Article  5 
deals  with  the  whole  subject  of  taxation  that  you  and  I  have 
been  talking  about  so  long,  so  they  would'  throw  into  this  pot 
the  Courts  and  all  subjects  of  taxation.  What  do  you  know 
about  that?  This  is  what  they  are  trying  to  accomplish.  They 
have  stuck  this  provision  on  to  the  end.  I  dare  say  they  would 
be  glad  to  drop  it  now  and  say  they  would  be  contented  to 
go  along  with  the  rest,  just  as  Mr.  Duncan  did  on  his  measure. 

This  resolution  would  allow  the  straight  initiative  and  refer- 
endum. Now  Mr.  Duncan  comes  out  and  says  this  is  not  so 
strong  as  his  resolution,  which  onlj^  provided  for  a  referendum. 
What  do  you  think  of  that  proposition?  Apologized  in  the 
first  place  for  his  own  measure,  and  wouldn't  offer  us  the  initi- 
ative direct,  and  now  comes  out  with  initiative  and  referendum 
full  fledged,  and  says  it  isn't  so  strong  as  his  other  bill.     We 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  375 

are  not  looking  for  consistencj'.  We  would  like  to  get  in  touch 
with  something  that  is  reasonable. 

The  statistics  that  thej'  quote  are  ridiculous.  They  remind 
me  of  that  statistician  who  said  that  if  all  the  cattle  that  were 
slaughtered  in  this  country  could  be  put  into  one  great  cow, 
with  her  head  she  would  be  cropping  grass  at  the  equator, 
while  with  her  tail  she  would  bat  the  flies  off  the  north  pole, 
and  if  all  the  hogs  that  are  slaughtered  in  this  country  in 
one  year  could  be  put  into  one  hog,  he  could  dig  the  Panama 
Canal  in  two  roots  and  a  half,  and  his  squeal  would  jar  the 
aurora  borealis.  They  are  great  on  statistics,  but  they  don't 
come  to  anything. 

The  railroad  fight  that  Mr.  HoUis  speaks  of  is  today  going 
along  under  the  general  law,  and  may  not  come  before  the  leg- 
islature. And  do  he  and  his  friend  think  they  cannot  handle 
that  business?  If  they  do,  they  depreciate  their  own  ability. 
That  bill  is  supposed  to  take  care  of  any  of  those  things  and 
they  will  probably  never  come  before  the  people. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  it  is  a  j)retty  short  time  that  I  am  given 
here  to  close  up  a  subject  so  full  as  this.  It  is  absolutely 
wicked,  Gentlemen.  We  voted  the  thing  down  once.  They  are 
trying  to  get  a  little  hold  here.  They  haven't  covered  the  re- 
call in  just  so  many  w^ords,  but,  I  tell  you  if  you  don't  stop 
this  thing  now,  it  will  be  like  the  railroad  train  that  starts 
and  don't  stop.  It  is  up  to  you  and  me  to  stand  firm,  w^ith 
our  hands  together,  good  examples  of  North  American  white 
men,  not  a  bunch  of  people  who  go  off  half  cocked.  Let  us 
stand  here.  Gentlemen,  for  the  things  we  believe  are  right, 
that  have  been  tried,  and  throughout  one  hundred  twenty-five 
years  have  revealed  but  one  or  two  little  sags,  little  drops, 
from  what  is  called  strict  virtue. 

The  time  having  arriyed  at  which  it  was  voted  that  a  vote 
be  taken,  — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  demand  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Drew  of  Lancaster,  Mr. 
Smith  of  Peterborough,  Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey,  Mr.  Boynton 
of  Portsmouth,  Mr.  CHfford  of  Franklin,  Mr.  Lambert  of 
Manchester,  Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin,  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport,  and 
Mr.  Wason  of  Xashua,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 


376     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

YEAS. 

EocKiNGHAM  CoTJNTT.  Benson,  Ingalls,  Holmes,  Towle^ 
Batchelder  of  Nottingham,  Moran  of  Portsmouth,  Foote, 
Gowen. 

Strafford  County.  Clark  of  Barrington,  Folsom,  Main, 
Sherry,  Sanders  of  Madbury,  Eoberts,  Ereston,  Beaudoin, 
Grant  of  Eollinsford,  Brown  of  Somersworth,  Cote,  Flanagan, 
Letourneau,  Leclerc  of  Somersworth. 

Belknap  County.  McDuffee  of  Alton,  Moore  of  Barn- 
stead. 

Carroll  County.  Andrews  of  Bartlett,  Fifield,  Robert- 
son, Hoyt  of  Madison,  Lamprey,  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. 

Merrimack  County.  Buxton,  Farrand,  Marden  of  Con- 
cord, Hollis  of  Ward  3,  Concord,  Hollis  of  Ward  4,  Concord, 
Hatch,  Gallagher,  Henneberry,  Dean,  Bean  of  Franklin, 
Woodbury  of  Franklin,  Jones  of  Franklin,  Wilkins,  Mitchell  of 
Hooksett,  Boutwell,  Sargent,  Wellman  of  New  London,  Drake 
of  Pittsfield,  Sawyer,  Goodhue. 

Hillsborouoh  County.  Eldredge,  Fessenden,  Dutton, 
Ware,  Hayden,  Tarbell,  Lindquist,  Shontell,  Broderick,  Con- 
nor of  Ward  5,  Manchester,  Eagan,  Howe  of  Manchester,  Ma- 
gan,  Ryan,  Sheehan,  Morse  of  Manchester,  Rodelsperger, 
Schiller,  Tinkham,  Van  Vliet,  Geoffrion,  Turcotte,  Chevrette, 
Connor  of  Ward  10',  Manchester,  Donnelly,  Leclerc  of  Man- 
chester, Eaton,  Wadleigh  of  Milford,  Conner  of  Mont  Vernon, 
Rancour,  Parker  of  Nashua,  Gaffney,  Moran  of  Nashua,  Shea, 
Tolles,  Clancy,  Dionne,  Ducharme,  Theriault,  Davis  of  New 
Ipswich,  Smith  of  Sharon,  Nelson. 

CheiSHIre  County.  Slade,  Winn,  Temple,  Duncan,  Stur- 
tevant,  Faulkner,  Twitchell,  Connors,  Ball,  Fisher. 

Sullivan  Coun-ty.  Neal  of  Acworth,  Quimby  of  Clare- 
mont,  Upham,  Comings,  Parker  of  Dempster,  Bailey  of  Suna- 
pee,  Newton. 

Grafton  County.  Spooner,  Updyke,  Clark  of  Haverhill^ 
Curry,  Stevens  of  Landaff,  Brummer,  Bailey  of  Littleton, 
Clement,  Green  of  Woodstock. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  37T 

Coos  CouN^TY.  Smith  of  Berlin,  Stewart,  Sullivan,  Wolf,. 
Sheehe,  Whitcomb  of  Dalton,  Wight,  Cleaveland,  Hancock, 
Potter,  Baldwin,  Pike,  Garland,  Haarvei. 

XAYS. 

EocKiNGHAJM  CouNTY.  Pressey,  Griffin,  Knights,  McDuf- 
fee  of  Candia,  Collins  of  Danville,  Marston,  Shepard,  Webster, 
Anderson,  Eastman  of  Exeter,  Sanborn,  Emerson,  Lane,. 
Healey,  Eowe,  Collins  of  Kingston,  Leighton,  Willey,  Hay- 
ford,  Dow,  Hill  of  Plaistow,  Entwistle,  Hett,  Batchelder  of 
Portsmouth,  Boynton,  Sise,  Mitchell  of  Portsmouth,  Guptill^ 
Brown  of  Eaymond,  Drake  of  Eye,  Gordon,  Levering,  Jewell 
of  South  Hampton,  Cochran. 

Stkafk)ed  County.  Hurd  of  Dover,  ISTeal  of  Dover, 
Whittemore,  Foss,  Hall  of  Dover,  DeMerritt,  Knox,  Willson  of 
Farmington,  Snell,  Hanson,  Berry  of  New  Durham,  Eichards, 
Meader,  Marcotte,  Hoyt  of  Eochester,  Wallace,  Haines,  Dur> 
gin. 

Belknap  Cotjnty.  Bean  of  Belmont,  Morrill  of  Centre 
Haribor,  Morrill  of  Gilford,  Parsons,  Prescott,  Eichardson, 
Busiel,  Young  of  Laconia,  Veazey  of  Laconia,  Drake  of  La- 
conia,  Estes,  Thyng,  Wright,  Fellows,  Tilton. 

Carroll  CO'Unty.  AViggin,  Chandler,  Shirley,  Wormwood, 
Huckins,  Morey,  Trickey,  French  of  Moultonborough,  Weeks 
of  Ossipee,  Wentworth,  Pollard,  Berry  of  Wakefield,  Abbott. 

Merrimack  CoimTY.  Smith  of  Allenstown,  Stone  of  An- 
dover,  Kittredge,  Clough  of  Canterbury,  Shaw  of  Chichester, 
Tibbetts,  Lyford,  Mitchell  of  Concord,  Corning,  Morrill  of 
Concord,  Bancroft,  Kimball,  Martin,  Quimby  of  Concord,  Hill 
of  Concord,  Burnham,  Tripp,  Gardner,  Clifford,  Little,  Doni- 
gan.  Young  of  Northfield,  Fowler,  G.  W.,  of  Pembroke,  Fow- 
ler, H.  T.,  of  Pembroke,  Eainville,  Clark  of  Pittsfield,  Wad- 
leigh  of  Sutton,  Carroll. 

Hillsborough  Cou^^ty.  Harvell,  Soper,  Patch,  Hadley, 
Seeton,  Hardy,  Flanders,  Haslet,  Brown  of  Hudson,  Eicher, 
Sayers,  Tait,  Brown  of  Manchester,  Lambert,  Pattee  of  Man- 
chester, Warren,  Wilson  of  Manchester,  Crawford,  Jones  of 


878      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Manchester,  Libbev,  Pillsbiiry  of  Manchester,  Cavanaugh, 
Fairbanks,  Garmon,  Haselton  of  Manchester,  Young  of  Man- 
chester, Chatel,  Stevens  of  Manchester,  Woodbury  of  Man- 
chester, Biron,  Demers,  Gagne  of  ward  9,  Manchester,  Parker 
of  Merrimack,  Keyes,  McLane,  Greeley,  Andrews  of  Xashua, 
French  of  Nashua,  AVason,  Eunnells,  Woodbury  of  Nashua, 
Hobbs  of  Pelham,  Jones  of  Peterborough,  Smith  of  Peter- 
borough, Colburn,  Bales. 

CuEislHrRE  Comrrr.  Prentiss,  Pierce  of  Dublin,  Blake, 
Hubbard,  Mower  of  Jaffrey,  Cain,  Norwood,  Pressler,  Well- 
man  of  Keene,  Clark  of  Keene,  Madden,  Fuller  of  Marlbor- 
ough, Craig,  Euffle,  Fletcher,  Nims  of  Eoxbury,  Spalding  of 
Stoddard,  Goodnow,  AATiitcomb  of  Swanzey,  Stone  of  Troy, 
Spaulding  of  Walpole,  Nims  of  Westmoreland. 

Sullivan  Coui^y.  Brooks,  Rossiter,  Davis  of  Croydon. 
Booth,  Howard,  Winch,  Barton,  Johnson  of  Newport,  Phil- 
brick,  Hixson. 

Grafton  Com^Y.  Mathews,  Gammons,  Parker  of  Ben- 
ton, Whipple,  Barney  of  Canaan,  Merrill,  Young  of  Easton, 
Carlton,  Wells,  Barney  of  Grafton,  Jewell  of  Groton,  Storrs, 
Whitcher,  Moore  of  Hebron,  Carter,  Hatton,  True,  Water- 
man, Cakes,  Eastman,  Veazie  of  Littleton,  Shute  of  Lyman, 
Grant  of*  Lyme,  Gilchrist,  Ford,  Carr,  Keniston,  Weeks  of 
Plymouth,  Herbert,  Green  of  Waterville,  Shute  of  Went- 
worth. 

Coos  County.  Goss,  Harriman,  Johnson  of  Colebrook, 
Lang,  Clough  of  Jefferson,  Drew,  Morris,  Watson,  Simpson, 
Knapp,  Pattee  of  Stratford,  Bowker. 

Pairs. 

Mr.  Leddy  of  Epping  was  paired  with  Mr.  Scammon  of 
Exeter. 

Mr.  Shaw  of  Salisbury  was  paired  with  Mr.  Howe  of  Hins- 
dale.. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua  was  paired  with  Mr.  Phaneuf  oi 
Nashua. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  379 

Mr.  Newell  of  Surry  was  paired  with  Mr.  Young  of 
Charlestown. 

Mr.  Kurd  of  Claremont  was  paired  with  Mr.  Robinson  of 
Newport. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Smyth  of  Berlin  was  paired  with  Mr.  Evans  of 
Gorham. 

One  hundred  and  thirty-two  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the 
affirmative  and  229  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative 
the  motion  did  not  prevail. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee,— 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
was  adopted. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative  De- 
partment, to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  12,  Relating 
to  the  Jurisdiction  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  having  consid- 
ered the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  recommen- 
dation: 

Resolved,  That  the  resolution  be  agreed  to. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee,— 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — Mr.  President  andi  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  won't  take  very  much  of  your  time,  but  I  think 
this  resolution  needs  a  little  explanation,  as  it  is  a  matter  of 
a  technical  nature,  and  perhaps  not  generally  understood.  In 
the  first  place,  I  would'  saj  thut  the  title  of  the  resolution  is 
perhaps  a  little  misleading.  The  title  is  "Relating  to  Juris- 
diction of  Justices  of  the  Peace."  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
this,  resolution  does  not  change  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of 
the  peace,  either  with  respect  to  criminal  matters  or  civil  mat- 
ters. It  relates  solely  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Police  Courts.  1 
want  to  explain  briefly  the  present  situation  and  past  history 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  and  Police  Courts. 
Up  to  1812  the  jurisdiction  of  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  criminal 


380     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

matters  was  confined  to  offenses  wherein  the  punishment  was 
forty  shillings,  or  a  public  whipping  or  setting  in  the  stocks. 
In  1S12  the  legislature  passed  an  act  by  which  the  offense  of 
larceny  of  property  not  exceeding  $6.66  in  value  was  to  be  pun- 
ished by  a  fine  of  not  exceeding  $10  or  imprisonment  of  not 
exceeding  thirty  days.  Justices  of  the  peace  were  given  jur- 
isdiction of  the  offense. 

In  1842  the  legislature  passed  a  general  jurisdiction  act  for 
justices  of  the  peace,  giving  them  jurisdiction  of  all  offense's 
wherein  the  fine  did  not  exceed  $10  and  the  imprisonment  did 
not  exceed  thirty  days.  This  remained  the  law  until  1867. 
The  legislature  in  1867  undertook  to  increase  those  penalties. 
As  I  understand  it,  it  did  not  increase  the  number  of  offense* 
which  came  within  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace,  but 
it  did  increase  the  penalties.  It  increased  the  penalties  so  that 
all  offenses  that  were  within  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the 
peace  were  punishable  by  fine  not  exceeding  $20  or  imprison- 
ment not  exceeding  six  months,  or  both.  From  1867  down  to 
1896  we  were  acting  under  that  law,  not  knowing  that  it  was 
unconstitutional,  and  many  cases,  no  doubt,  were  tried  and 
heard  and  respondents  convicted  under  an  unconstitutional  law, 
or  at  least  what  the  Court  later  said  was  an  unconstitutional 
law.  In  1896  the  legislature  undertook,  and  did  pass,  an  act  as 
follows:  "Police  Courts  shall  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  with 
the  Supreme  Court  in  any  criminal  acts  where  the  fine  does 
not  exceed  $200  and  the  term  of  imprisonment  does  not  exceed 
one  year." 

The  next  year  there  arose  in  the  Police  Court  of  the  city  of 
Concord  the  case  of  State  v.  Gerry,  68  N.  H.  495,  wherein  the 
constitutionality  of  this  law  of  1896  was  called  in  question,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  of  this  state,  through  Chief  Justice  Carpen- 
ter, who  delivered  the  opinion,  held  that  the  law  of  1896  was 
unconstitutional.  In  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Carpenter  we 
find  the  following  language  referring  to  the  law  of  1867, 
wherein  justices  of  the  peace  were  given  jurisdiction  of  offenses 
punishable  by  fine  of  $20  and  not  exceeding  six  months*  im- 
prisonment. "The  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  this  ap- 
parently increased  jurisdiction  of  a  justice  of  the  peace  has 
never  been  raised.  Whether  it  is  to  be  or  may  be  sustained  on 
the  ground  that  the  increase  is  ostensible  rather  than  actual, — 
that  ten  dollars  in  1812  and  1842  and  twenty  dollars  in  1867 
was  no  more  in  value  than  forty  shillings  in  1784,  and  that  im- 
prisonment in  jail  for  six  months  is  not  more  than  a  just  and 
reasonable  equivalent  for  the  barbarous  punishment  of  a  pub- 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  381 

lie  whipping  and  setting  in  the  stocks,  or  on  the  ground  of 
usage  and  acquiesence, — is  a  question  not  raised  and  not  neces- 
sary to  be  considered."  , 

The  lawyers  of  the  state  were  very  ready  to  accept  this 
hint  from  Judge  Carpenter,  and  the  next  year  the  case  of  State 
V.  Jackson,  69  N.  H.  511,  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  from 
the  Police  Court  of  the  town  of  Littleton.  In  the  case  of  State 
V.  Jackson,  Judge  Chase  wrote  quite  a  long,  elaborate  opinion, 
and  the  result  was  that  the  Court  held  that  this  law  of  1867, 
giving  justices  of  the  peace  and  Police  Courts  jurisdiction  of 
offenses  punishable  by  fine  of  twenty  dollars,  was  not  consti- 
tutional, in  so  far  as  the  penalty  was  above  the  sum  of  ten 
dollars.  In  other  words,  the  Court  set  the  limit  of  the  pen- 
altj  at  ten  dollars,  but  the  question  of  imprisonment  was  nob 
decided  in  the  case  of  State  v.  Jackson.  , 

That  remained  open  until  1908,  when,  in  the  case  of  Wil- 
marth  v.  King,  74  N.  H.  512,  Chief  Justice  Parsons  wrote  an 
opinion  holding  that  the  Court  could  not  determine,  as  a  ques- 
tion of  fact,  that  six  months  in  jail  was  more  than  the  equiva- 
lent for  the  barbarous  punishment  of  public  whipping  or  set- 
ting in  the  stocks. 

So  now,  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  and  the  juris- 
diction of  Police  Courts  is  limited  to  a  fine  of  ten  dollars,  but 
they  may  impose  a  sentence  of  six  months  in  jail. 

The  purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  straighten  out  this  situ- 
ation. It  is  to  empower  the  legislature  to  re-enact  the  law 
in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Police  Courts,  which  we  acted  under 
for  about  thirty  years,  not  knowing  it  was  unconstitutional. 
Perhaps  I  need  to  say  nothing  more  in  explanation  of  it.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  safety  of  respondents  is  well  taken  care 
of  by  the  right  of  appeal.  There  has  grown  up,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  in  many  Police  Courts  of  the  state,  a  practice  of  al- 
lowing respondents  to  come  into  Court,  waive  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Courts,  and  waive  their  right  of  trial  by  jury,  so  that 
they  may  be  fined  in  that  Court.  This  is  done  to  save  expense 
and  for  the  good  of  the  respondent  himself,  that  he  may  not, 
perhaps,  lie  in  jail  thirty  or  sixty  days  awaiting  trial.  It 
seems  to  me  this  practice  is  very  questionable  and  wrong.  It 
shows  the  necessity  of  some  increased  jurisdiction  of  Police 
€ourts. 

This  amendment,  if  adopted,  will  also  be  a  great  saving  to 
the  counties  of  the  state.  I  will  give  you  just  one  illustration 
showing  how  it  will  be  a  saving.  We  will  suppose  that  in  the 
-town    of    Bethlehem,    in    the    county    of    Grafton,    someone    is 


382      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

charged  with  an  offense  of  aggravated  assault  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  term  of  Court  in  that  county  in  September.  If  he 
has  a  desire  to  plead  guilty, — perhaps  I  ought  not  to  have  se- 
lected the  offense  of  aggravated  assault  for  illustration,  but 
some  offense  not  punishable  by  confinement  in  state  prison, — 
if  he  wants  to  plead  guilty,  that  plea  cannot  be  accepted,  and 
that  case  cannot  be  disposed  of.  The  only  alternative  is  to 
bind  the  respondent  over  to  appear  before  the  grand  jury.  He 
is  bound  over.  We  assume  he  cannot  get  bail.  The  county  will 
be  obliged  to  stand  the  expense  of  the  conveyance  of  that 
prisoner  from  Bethlehem  to  the  jail  in  Haverhill,  bear  the  ex- 
pense of  summoning  witnesses  before  the  grand  jury,  bear  the 
expense  of  taking  the  respondent  from  jail  to  the  Court  at 
Woodsville,  and  back  again,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  having 
his  sentence  imposed.  In  the  meantime  the  respondent  has 
lain  in  jail  five  months  or  more  at  the  further  expense  of  tliG 
county. 

Now,  that  is  wrong  to  the  county;  it  is  wrong  to  the  respond- 
ent. It  seems  to  me  a  large  number  of  these  cases  might  be 
taken  care  of  if  the  legislature  had  the  right  to  pass  an  act 
which  would  increase  the  jurisdiction  of  Police  Courts.  It 
would  be  a  great  saving  to  the  counties  and  the  respondent's 
rights  would  be  safeguarded.  I  believe  that  the  resolution 
ought  to  be  adopted.  , 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  President,  this  amendment  was 
submitted  ten  years  ago  by  unanimous  vote  of  the  Convention, 
after  thorough  discussion,  and  simply  because  it  was  not  un- 
derstood it  failed  by  a  little  less  than  one  thousand  votes. 
The  Committee  was  unanimous  in  its  report  in  favor  of  its 
being  again  submitted  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Wason  of  NasJma. — Just  one  word  more:  My  friend,  Mr. 
Lyford  from  Concord,  took  part  of  the  words  out  of  my  mouth, 
and  I  subscribe  to  all  he  said.  At  the  Convention  ten  years 
ago  my  brother  Morris,  who  then  came  from  Lisbon  as  I  re- 
call it,  and  who  was  then  county  solicitor  for  Grafton  County, 
introduced  this  same  amendment.  It  passed,  as  the  gentlemarr 
from  Concord  says,  unanimously,  and  went,  with  other  amend- 
ments, to  the  people,  and  came  within  949  votes  of  being 
adopted,  without  any  effort  being  made,  and  the  reason  why 
it  wasn*t  adopted  was  because  nobody  paid  any  attention  to  it, 
went  as  a  matter  of  course.  Now,  Brother  Morris  has  had 
experience  to  observe  the  working  of  the  statute  under  the 
Court's  interpretation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Police  Courts,  while 
he  was  solicitor.     I  myself,  since  that  time,  have  had  some  op- 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  383 

portuiiity  to  judge  of  it  in  my  own  county,  and  I  agreed  with 
him  then,  and  I  agree  with  him  more  now.  It  is  a  matter  that 
is  needed  for  economy's  sake  and  for  convenience  of  the  re- 
spondent. 

Take,  for  instance,  in  our  county,  our  Court,  as  you  gentle- 
men from  Hillsborough  County  know,  is  burdened  with  a  lot  of 
work.  Many  of  these  minor  offenses  can  be  settled  in  the  Po- 
lice Courts,  and  effectually  settled,  and  the  respondent's  rights 
are  protected,  mind  you,  because,  if  he  is  dissatisfied  with  the 
finding  of  the  Police  Court  he  can  appeal  and  be  tried  in  the 
Superior  Court,  just  the  same  as  though  the  Police  Court  simply 
had  the  right  to  bind  him  over  or  make  him  furnish  bonds  to 
await  the  action  of  the  Superior  Court.  Now,  then,  there  will 
be  a  saving  of  the  time  of  the  Superior  Court,  as  I-  have  said. 
Take  the  towns  of  Peterborough  and  Hillsborough,  which  are 
thirty-five  or  fortj'  miles  distant  from  Nashua,  where  one  oi 
the  ternis  of  Court  is  holden.  An  offense  where  the  respond- 
ent may  be  brought  before  the  justice  of  either  of  these  Courts 
might  be  settled  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  state,  and  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  the  respondent  without  the  respondent  being 
obliged  to  furnish  bonds.  It  would  save  the  cost  of  prosecution, 
and.  the  laws  of  the  state  could  be  just  as  effectively  enforced 
as  under  our  present  method. 

One  word  more:  The  practice  has  grown  up  to  have  the 
respondent,  by  writing,  sign  an  agreement  waiving  his  rights 
under  the  law  and  the  Constitution.  This  is  done  in  many 
cases.  I  don't  know  whether  that  is  legal  or  not.  I  have  grave 
doubts  about  it,  and  I  think  my  Brother  Morris  shares  that 
same  opinion  with  me.  I  do  know  that  it  is  not  proper,  and 
I  know  that  we  ought  to  furnish  the  authority  to  the  Police 
Courts  so  that  a  respondent  can  be  tried  and  his  matter  de- 
termined without  waiving  his  constitutional  rights,  and  I  do 
not  think  a  man  can  properly  do  that.  So  I  say  nobody  will 
be  hurt;  it  will  make  our  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the 
state  conform  to  the  practice,  and  I  believe  next  time  that  it 
will  be  adopted  by  the  voters. 

Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin. — I  do  not  know  that  there  is  oppo- 
sition to  this  proposed  amendment,  but  I  wish  to  add  my  sup- 
port to  the  same.  The  proposed  amendment,  if  adopted,  would 
relieve  the  Superior  Court  of  much  of  its  criminal  work,  and 
respondents  charged  with  misdemeanors  from  a  large  part  of 
the  costs  they  are  now  obliged  to  pay  as  a  result  of  witnesses 
appearing,  not  only  before  the  Police  Courts,  but  before  the 
grand  jury,  this  relief  being  particularly  needed  by  respondents 
of  limited  means. 


384     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Oreeley  of  Nashua. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  wish 
to  say  just  a  few  words  upon  this  question.  The  gentlemen 
who  have  preceded  me  have  stated  the  leg-al  situation,  but  there 
is  a  broad  principle  involved  that  you  may  desire  to  support. 
As  the  law  now  is,  any  man  who  is  arraigned  in  Police  Court, 
when  the  fine  exceeds  ten  dollars,  is  not  guilty,  and  cannot  be 
found  guilty  until  he  is  found  guilty  by  a  jury.  Now,  this 
resolution  is  wrong,  in  my  opinion,  in  this,  that  in  the  first 
instance,  in  all  criminal  cases  within  the  final  jurisdiction  of 
this  bill,  a  man  who  goes  into  Police  Court  is  either  acquitted 
or  he  is  found  guilty.     He  is  found  guilty  without  a  jury  trial. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  if  there  are  reasons  for  this  radical  change, 
then  a  change  should  be  made.  Throughout  the  history  of  this 
state,  from  the  foundation  of  the  Constitution,  it  has  been 
otherwise,  and'  it  seems  to  me  that  at  the  present  day  the 
reason  for  the  change  does  not  exist.  It  seems  to  me  that 
every  man  who  goes  into  a  Police  Court  for  any  alleged  crime 
exceeding  a  petty  misdemeanor  is  entitled  to  be  called  not 
guilty  until  he  is  proven  guilty  by  a  jury  of  his  peers.  Gen- 
tlemen, the  effect  of  this  resolution  is  this, — it  is  the  same 
broad  principle  upon  which  you  decided  the  referendum,  the 
same  principle  upon  which  you  decided  the  taxation  question. 
In  the  first  place,  in  the  question  of  referendum,  you  decided 
that  it  was  not  wise,  as  a  matter  of  public  policy,  that  the 
people  of  the  state  should  have  so  unrestricted  a  say  upon 
matters  of  legislation.  On  the  matter  of  taxation,  you  decided 
that  the  body  of  the  legislature  should  not  have  an  unrestricted 
say  as  to  the  manner  of  taxation,  but  here  in  this  resolution 
you  say  that  one  man  shall  impose  on  another  man  the  stigma 
of  guilty  in  major  criminal  offenses  without  a  jury  trial.  Gen- 
tlemen, that  is  opposed  to  the  whole  current  of  our  history, 
and  for  that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  I  oppose  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Batchelder  of  Portsmouth. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen, 
I  simply  want  to  add  a  word  to  say,  as  a  former  solicitor,  and 
liaving  experience  similar  to  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Nashua  and  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  that  I  agree  thor- 
oughly with  them.  A  resolution  of  this  sort  is  necessary  to  get 
rid  of  the  burden  of  petty  cases  that  now  have  to  go  through 
-the  grand  jury  and  the  Superior  Court,  where  they  do  not 
belong. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  this  proposed 
•amendment,  having  had'  some  experience  in  criminal  matters  in 
■the  last  twenty  years.     According  to  my   observation,  the  pro- 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  385 

posed  amendment  is  in  the  Une  of  progress,  and  does  not  pr-d- 
vent  anybody  from  trial  by  jurj'.  As  has  been  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Nashua,  it  enables  the  Court  to  dispose  of 
small  matters,  and  more  frequently  than  otherwise,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  respondent  himself,  who  does  not  like  to  lie  in  jail 
six  or  eight  months  awaiting  trial  by  jury;  and'  certainly,  if 
the  case  is  one  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Police  Courts  now 
established,  or  which  shall  be  established  by  this  proposed 
amendment,  he  has  this  right  of  a  trial  by  jury.  There  is  no 
more  argument  in  favor  of  rejecting  this  proposed  amendment 
than  there  is  argument  in  favor  of  saying  there  should  not  be 
any  convictions  for  criminal  offenses  unless  the  respondent  is 
tried  by  jury.     I  hope  the  proposed  amendment  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. — Just  one  word  in  reply  to  my  Brother 
Greeley  of  Nashma:  I  want  you  to  remember  that  his  objection 
is  that  a  single  judge,  a  Police  Court  judge  in  Manchester, 
Nashua,  Milford,  Peterborough  or  Concord,  naming  over  the 
large  places,  pronounces  a  man  guilty  without  a  jury  trial. 
That  is  so  for  the  moment,  but  if  the  man  feels  that  he  is  not 
guilty,  and  the  judge  says  that  he  is,  he  can  appeal  to  the 
Superior  Court  and,  under  our  Constitution,  go  to  twelve  men 
of  his  peers  and  they  finally  will  say  whether  he  is  guilty, 
and,  until  they  render  that  verdict,  he  is  an  innocent  man 
under  our  law,  and  if  they  render  a  verdict  acquitting  him, 
he  leaves  the  court  house  an  innocent,  free  man.  Momentarilj'", 
while  he  or  his  counsel  in  the  Police  Court  are  getting  onto 
their  feet  to  tell  the  judge  who  is  hearing  the  case  that  they 
wish  to  appeal,  he  is  a  guilty  man,  and  no  longer. 

Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I  have  no  special  interest 
in  this  matter.  You  have  heard  what  my  Brother  Eastrpan 
from  Exeter, — and  you  know  his  experience  in  criminal  mat- 
ters,— says.  Yoa  have  heard'  what  Brother  Clifford  of  Frank- 
lin says,  and  he  is  solicitor  for  Merrimack  county.  You  have 
heard  what  Brother  Morris  says,  and  he  has  been  solicitor 
of  Grafton  county,  and  Brother  Batchelder  has  been  solicitor 
of  Rockingham  county.  None  of  these  men  have  any  interest 
in  this  subject  except  to  relieve  the  Superior  Court,  and  give 
the  respondent  in  any  case  the  right  to  dispose  of  his  matters 
without  filing  a  written  plea  waiving  his  constitutional  rightg. 

Another  thing,  in  the  larger  cities  there  are  ordinances 
passed  relating  to  this  and  that  for  the  government  of  per- 
sons in  that  city.  Many  of  these  ordinances  carry  a  penalty 
not  exceeding  twenty  dollars.  Take  one  for  illustration:  Sup- 
pose in  the  city  of  Concord,  or  in  Nashua,  on  recommendation 


386    Journal  of  Constitutional  Contention. 

of  the  Board  of  Health,  an  ordinance  was  passed  that  if  any 
man  spit  upon  the  sidewalk  he  should  be  fined  not  exceeding 
twenty  dollars.  Under  the  decision  of  our  Court,  interpreting 
the  Constitution  as  it  stands  today,  the  Police  Court  of  the  city 
of  Concord,  unless  the  man  waived  his  right  of  appeal,  could 
only  bind  the  respondent  over.  He  would  have  to  wait  to  have 
his  case  go  before  the  grand  jury  and  before  the  Superior 
Court.  The  same  would  be  true  in  Nashua.  This  amendment 
proposes  that  the  gentleman  who  has  violated  that  ordinance 
can  be  tried  before  a  judge  at  a  given  Court,  and  if  he  knows 
he  is  guilty  say  so,  have  his  case  heard  and  settle,  without 
being  bound  over  for  one,  two,  three  or  perhaps  four  months, 
until  a  grand  jury  can  determine  whether  there  is  sufficient 
evidence  to  warrant  bringing  in  an  indictment  against  him 
that  he  spit  upon  the  sidewalk.  Mr.  President,  I  believe  that 
this  Convention  will  submit  this  proposition  to  the  people  for 
ratification. 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  would 
like  to  say  a  word  in  favor  of  this  resolution  of  Mr.  Morris. 
I  am  on  the  Board  of  Health  in  Berlin,  and  we  have  just  the 
same  difficulties  that  my  friend  Mr.  Wason  has  described  in 
Nashua.  I  am  very  sure  that  if  this  resolution  is  passed  and 
the  people  ratify  it  when  it  is  finally  referred  to  them,  that  it 
would  be  of  great  assistance  in  enforcing  the  local  health  laws, 
and  I  am,  therefore,  heartily  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  Cain  of  Keenc— 'Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, while  I  have  known  nothing  in  regard  to  this  reso- 
lution until  I  heard  it,  still,  as  solicitor  of  some  years'  experi- 
ence, I  am  in  hearty  accord  with  it,  because  I  have  seen  just 
such  operations  as  have  been  described  here  in  connection  with 
the  Police  Courts.  And,  so  far  as  the  objection  raised  by  the 
gentleman  from  Nashua  is  concerned,  it  deprives  the  respond- 
ent of  no  right  he  possesses.  The  mere  fact  the  respondent 
may  be  found  guilty  in  Police  Court  is  no  evidence  of  guilt  in 
Superior  Court,  any  more  than  if  a  true  bill  is  found  by  the 
grand  jury,  and  I  think  the  rights  of  the  respondent  will  be 
fully  protected  in  this  matter  and  it  will  be  a  great  aid  to  the 
civil  authorities. 

Mr.  Toimg  of  ManelieMer. — Without  any  desire  to  shut  off 
further  debate,  but  with  a  feeling  that  everyone  is  ready  to 
vote  upon  the  question  now,  I  would  call  for  the  previous  ques- 
tion. 

The  Presi<l^nt.— The  previous  question  is  not  provided  for  in 
the  rules  of  this  Convention,  and  the  Chair  will  recognize  the 
gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Greeley. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  387 

Mr.  Greeley  of  NmJina.—'Sir.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  ask 
the  indulgence  of  the  Convention  for  a  word  more.  My  point 
has  been  wholly  misunderstood.  I  have  not  said  that  under 
this  resolution  the  man  who  stands  convicted  in  Police  Court 
does  not  have  a  right  of  appeal.  The  resolution  expressly  says 
that  he  does,  and  no  harm  can  result  to  him  from  that.  But 
the  point  of  my  objection  is  this:  Under  a  law  enacted  in 
pursuance  of  this  resolution,  the  moment  a  man  is  found  guilty 
by  a  single  judge  in  a  Police  Court  he  goes  forth  from  that 
Police  Court  a  convicted  criminal,  and  he  stays  a  convicted 
criminal  until  he  assumes  the  burden  of  going  into  the  Superior 
Court,  and  is  acquitted  by  jury.  This  should  not  be  so,  and  is 
not  so  under  existing  law,  and  never  has  been  so  in  this  state. 
At  the  present  time  a  Police  Court  justice,  in  any  offense  where 
the  fine  exceeds  $10,  can  only  bind  over  and  can  only  find 
probable  cause.  In  that  finding  no  criminalty  attaches.  The 
man  is  still  innocent  and  he  stays  innocent  until  he  is  found 
guilty  by  a  jury.  That  is  existing  law.  But,  under  this  reso- 
lution if  adopted,  a  man  convicted  of  a  major  criminal  offense 
by  a  single  justice  in  a  Police  Court  is  guilty,  and  he  stays 
guilty  until  he  assumes  the  burden  of  the  initiative  and  a  jury 
find  him  innocent.  The  policy  of  our  law  throughout  the  his- 
tory of  our  state  has  established  this  safeguard  for  every 
man's  good  name,  which  this  resolution  would  take  away. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  the  Committee  have  made  their  report  on 
this  matter.  I  do  not  for  a  minute  think  any  remarks  of  mine 
will  induce  them  to  change  that  report.  But  there  is  one 
thing  we  can  do,  Gentlemen;  we  can  go  back  to  our  constit- 
uents and  tell  them  our  views  about  this  matter. 

Suppose,  Gentlemen,  that  any  one  of  you  have  a  family. 
Suppose  you  live  on  a  street  and  opposite  your  house  is  an- 
other house  of  some  character  which  you  do  not  like.  Sup- 
pose some  criminal  offense  is  being  committed  there.  What  do 
you  do?  Your  first  step  is  to  make  complaint  to  the  proper 
authorities.  They  make  an  arrest.  Suppose,  under  this  reso- 
lution, a  law  is  in  force,  and  the  man  arrested  is  arraigned  in 
Police  Court  and  acquitted.  What  rights  have  you  then?  Ab- 
solutely none.  You  can  sit  back  and  twiddle  your  thumbs. 
Your  complaint  of  an  important  criminal  offense  has  been 
disposed  of  for  good  and  all  by  a  single  Police  Court  justice. 
The  person  of  whom  you  complained  is  acquitted,  and  is  a  free 
man,  and  cannot  be  placed  in  jeopardy  twice  for  the  same  of- 
fense. This  would  be  liable  to  happen  at  any  time,  and  yo-i, 
as  complainant  and  a  citizen  working  for  your  livelihood, 
would  have  no  feasible  redress. 


388     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

What  can  you  do  under  existing-  law?  If  you,  as  complain- 
ant, don't  get  justice  in  a  Police  Court,  for  police  judges  are 
fallible, — and  an  offender  is  discharged,  you  can,  in  spite  of 
that  discharge,  present  the  same  case  to  a  grand  jury  and  re- 
quire your  neighbors  and  fellow  citizens  to  pass  upon  the 
reasonableness  of  your  complaint.  If  they  find  the  complaint 
is  justified,  the  person  complained  of  is  still  innocent,  but  the 
state  is  then  required  to  show  his  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  and  a  jury  must  find  him  guilty  before  he  can  be  called 
guilty. 

These  are  the  points  I  make.  In  a  word,  the  underlying  ob- 
jection to  this  resolution  is  this:  Excessive  power  for  any  ono 
man, — I  don't  care  who  he  is.  Police  Court  judge  or  otherwise, 
good,  bad  or  indifferent, — is  a  dangerous  thing  for  him  to  have. 
No  safeguard  to  a  good  name  is  too  great.  No  one  man  should 
be  permitted  to  affix  on  your  character  the  stigma  of  guilt  of 
any  important  offense.  That  should  happen,  if  happen  it  must, 
only  after  formal  indictment  and  a  jury  trial. 

Someone  has  said  that  county  solicitors  would  be  accom- 
modated by  a  law  enacted  in  pursuance  of  this  resolution; 
that  it  would  relieve  them  of  many  burdensome  cases  and  save 
their  time.  But  is  not  the  proper  place  to  make  a  complaint 
of  that  kind  before  the  legislature?  If  a  county  solicitor's 
duties  are  onerous  and  he  needs  more  pay,  the  legislature, 
under  existing  law,  may  give  him  more  pay.  If  he  needs  assist- 
ants, the  legislature  may  give  him  assistants.  This  involves 
no  question  of  a  constitutional  amendment,  but  to  incorporate 
into  our  Constitution  and  make  a  part  of  our  organic  and 
fundamental  law  a  principle  which  has  never  existed  and  ought 
not  to  exist  in  this  state,  that  any  man  may  be  convicted  and 
found  guilty  of  any  major  criminal  offense  before  indictment 
and  a  trial  by  a  jury  of  his  peers, — this  is  radically  wrong. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
was  adopted  and  the  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amend- 
ments Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Eeeolution  No.  52,  Relat- 
ing to  Betterments,  having  considered  the  same,  report  that  it 
is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  proposed  in  the 
amendment. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  389 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee,— 

Mr.  Young  of  Mancliester. — ^As  I  am  the  father  of  that  resolu- 
tion, and  as  I  wish  to  preach  the  funeral  sermon  over  the  reso- 
lution, I  trust  the  members  of  the  Convention  w^ill  support  the 
report  of  the  Committee. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  32,  Amend- 
ing Art.  5,  Sect.  2,  of  the  Constitution,  Establishing  Better- 
ment Laws,  having  considered  the  same,  report  that  it  is  inex- 
pedient to  amend  the  Constitution  as  proposed  in  the  resolu- 
tion. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyf ord  of  Concord,  the  use  of  Represen- 
tatives hall  was  granted  the  Legislative  Committee  for  this 
evening  for  a  hearing  on  the  various  resolutions  relating  to 
representation  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  3.4.0  o'clock. 

Afternioo'n  Session. 

The  Convention  met  immediately  after  the  morning  ad- 
journment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  consid- 
eration of  Resolution  No.  29,  Relating  to  the  Recall. 


390     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

In  CJoMMrr^E'E  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  the  Committee  now  rise, 
and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  it  is  inexpedient  to 
amend  the  Constitution  as  proposed  in  the  resolution. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 

In  Conye^^tion. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  29,  Relating  to  the  Re- 
call, having  considered  the  same,  recommend  to  the  Conven- 
tion that  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  pro- 
posed in  the  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Quimby  of  Claremont,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  all  resolutions  pertaining  to  representation  in  the 
Senate,  the  same  being, — 

Resolution  No.  2,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolution  No.  25,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  Warren  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord.— The  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment has  one  or  two  measures  of  that  kind  which  I  could  re- 
turn now  unofficially  if  it  is  desired  to  have  them  before  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Upham  of  Claremont. — When  the  matter  of  representa- 
tion was  taken  up,  I  moved  an  amendment  that  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  take  up  the  matter  of  representation  in  the  Hou*-e 
and  Senate  together,  and  now  there  is  to  be  a  public  hearing" 
tonight  on  the  question  of  representation  in  the  House,  while 
the    Senate   matter   is    apparently    skipped.    Why    wouldn't    it 


\Yednesday,  June  19,  1912.  391 

be  a  saving-  of  time  if  this  matter  could  also  be  taken  up  at 
that  public  hearing? 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  will 
say  we  have  had  so  many  requests  to  speak  on  the  question  ol 
representation  in  the  House,  that  I  doubt  if  we  ought  to,  in 
justice  to  this  question,  consider  the  two  together  before  our 
Committee. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — With  an  idea  of  getting  these  bills 
all  together  before  the  Committee,  where  they  may  be  dis- 
cussed tonight,  I  would  make  the  motion  that  we  go  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  if  necessary,  to  report  these  bills  back  to 
the  Convention,  and  that  they  may  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Legislative  Department. 

The  President. — If  the  gentleman  from  Claremont,  Mr.  Quimby, 
will  withdraw  his  motion  to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
then  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport  will  be  in 
order  to  recall  these  matters  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
and  refer  them  to  the  Standing  Committee;  otherwise  the  gen- 
tleman's motion  is  not  in  order.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Claremont,  Mr.  Quimby,  insist  upon  his  motion? 

Mr.  Quimby  of  Claremont. — If  there  is  anything  else  of  im- 
portance to  take  up,  I  will  withdraw  the  motion;  but,  if  there 
is  not,  I  insist  upon  my  motion. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — I  would  like  to  say  just  a  word  on 
this  question.  All  the  bills  concerning  representation  in  the 
House  were  discussed  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  an 
agreement  reached  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  that  we 
should  stick  to  the  town  system,  and  that  the  House  should 
be  reduced  to  a  number  not  in  excess  of  350.  Now,  no  proposi- 
tion concerning  the  Senate  has  been  discussed  at  all  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  and  it  is  just  exactly  as  important  a  mat- 
ter as  the  matter  of  representation  in  the  House,  and  before 
this  thing  is  sent  to  any  Committee  to  put  into  any  shape,  I 
think  we  ought  to  have  the  sense  of  this  whole  Convention,  and 
find  out  how  we  feel  on  the  question  of  the  size  of  and  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate.  I  think  that  will  save  time  and  give 
everybody  a  fair  chance. 

Mr.  WMtcher  of  Eavei'MU. — I  hope  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Claremont  will  prevail.  It  was  understood  the  other 
day  that  these  matters  of  representation  in  the  Senate  should 
have  the  same  chance  for  discussion  as  those  pertaining  to  rep- 
resentation in  the  House,  and  that  discussion  ought  to  be  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Xandaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  in  that  respect. 


392     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  President. — The  Chair  would  state  that,  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  the  other  day,  representation  in  both  the  Senate 
and  House  was  under  consideration,  but  that  the  Committee 
passed  a  recommendation  regarding  the  House  alone,  and  that 
report  was  adopted  by  the  Convention,  and  the  matter  of  the 
House  was  sent  to  the  Legislative  Committee,  but  they  were 
both  under  consideration  at  the  time,  and  that  leaves  the  mat- 
ter of  the  Senate  in  the  way  of  unfinished  business  in  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Cfoss  of  Berlin. — It  is  necessary  for  someone  to  commence 
the  discussion  upon  this  question,  and,  as  it  particularly  con- 
cerns the  section  which  I  represent,  I  take  the  opportunity  to 
open  it.  A  resolution.  No.  27,  has  been  presented  by  me,  but 
I  have  not  heard  it  mentioned  up  to  the  present  time.  The 
reason,  I  apprehend,  is  that,  not  being  present  at  the  Conven- 
tion at  the  time  when  that  resolution  was  presented,  I  had 
asked  the  Secretary  to  have  it  referred  to  the  proper  Com- 
mittee, where  it  appears  to  have  been  sent,  but  no  action  taken 
upon  it. 

In  the  resolution  which  was  presented  by  me,  there  were 
provisions  for  three  things,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  ought  to  be 
taken  up  and  considered  at  the  same  time.  One  was  for  a 
change  in  the  representation  in  the  House,  one  for  a  change 
in  the  representation  in  the  Senate,  and  one,  a  subject  which 
I  do  not  remember  to  have  heard  brought  up  anywhere  else, 
a  change  in  the  compensation  of  the  members  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  I  believe  that  the  latter  is  an  important  matter  for 
our  consideration.  The  members  of  our  state  legislature  are 
the  poorest  paid  officials  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and 
have  been  for  many  years.  The  Constitution  which  was  adopted 
in  1792  did  not  fix  the  rate  of  compensation  for  the  mem- 
bers, but  provided  that  the  legislature  should  fix  their  com- 
pensation. I  have  been  unable  to  find  what  the  compensation 
was  earlier  than  1830,  but  I  do  find  a  resolution  in  the  acts 
of  the  legislature  of  1830,  giving  to  the  members  of  the  legislat- 
ure, House  and  Senate,  compensation  at  the  rate  of  $2  per  day 
and  ten  cents  a  mile  travel.  Now  that  was  what  they  were  re- 
ceiving almost  ninetj'  years  ago.  The  compensation  of  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  today  is  $200,  fixed  by  the  Constitution, 
and  we  have  our  mileage  paid  by  the  state.  The  compensation, 
you  will  see,  of  members  of  the  legislature  today  is  substan- 
tially the  same  as  it  was  in  1830.  Our  legislature  now  lasts 
for  a  period  of  about  one  hundred  days,  and  a  member  gets 
$200  for  the  session.     As  compared  with  the  salaries  of  other 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  393- 

olticers  of  the  state,  there  has  been  a  manifest  injustice  done 
to  the  members  of  the  legrislature.  In  1830  the  Governor  re- 
ceived a  salary  of  $1,000;  today  the  Governor  has  a  salary  of 
$2,000.  The  justices  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court  received,  at  that  time,  $1,200.  Today, 
the  chief  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  chief  justice 
of  the  Superior  Court  receive  $4,200  each,  and  the  associate 
justices  receive  $4,000  each.  The  same  relative  difference  in 
the  salaries  of  other  officers  of  the  state  between  1830  and  the 
present  time  will  be  found  if  a  comparison  is  made. 

So  the  resolution  which  I  introduced  provided  for  some  relief 
in  the  matter  of  compensation  for  the  members  of  the  legis- 
lature. It  has  been  suggested  that  it  was  a  good  custom,  and 
that  the  old  practice  was  to  send  a  member  from  the  same 
town  for  more  than  one  term,  his  first  term  naturally  being* 
more  or  less  of  an  experience  for  him,  and  fitting  him  for  more 
active  duties  later  on;  and  that  we  do  not  keep  it  up  now. 
There  is,  however,  a  very  good  reason  why  we  do  not  and  can- 
not, and  it  is  that  a  man  does  not  feel,  especially  from  my 
end  of  the  state,  that  he  can  give  substantially  ten  or  twelve 
weeks  of  his  time  and  not  get  enough  to  pay  expenses  out  of 
it;  so  that  is  a  subject  w^hich  I  think  ought  to  be  taken  up  In 
connection  with  the  others. 

Xow,  just  a  word  in  regard  to  the  town  system  of  representa- 
tion. I  quite  agree  with  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  that 
the  old  town  system  is  first  rate.  The  first  difficulty  is  whether 
or  not  an  equitable  method  of  reducing  it  can  be  found.  If 
we  can,  whj^  that  is  first-rate.  But  if  we  cannot,  I  would,  never- 
theless, pay  our  representatives  ahd  senators  larger  salaries. 
One  reason  why  I  was  in  favor  of  the  district  system  was  be- 
cause I  thought  through  that  system  we  could  reduce  the  mem- 
bership of  the  House  to  two  hundred  or  thereabouts,  and  we 
could  double  the  pay  of  our  members  without  increasing  the 
expense  of  the  state;  but,  if  that  cannot  be  done,  I  believe  we 
should  increase  the  pay  anyway,  because,  even  if  we  should 
pay  our  members  $300  or  $400  a  session,  we  should  not  be  pay- 
ing any  more  in  proportion  to  the  wealth  of  the  state  than 
they  were  paying  in  1830,  when  they  were  paying  $2.00  a  day. 

Now,  a  word  in  regard  to  the  Senate.  The  Senate,  or  the 
function  of  the  Senate,  as  it  was  formulated  by  the  fathers  of 
the  Constitution,  evidently  was  to  act  as  a  check  upon  hasty 
legislation  in  the  House.  It  was  originally  the  practice  that 
the  Senate  should  only  be  elected  from  the  property  class. 
Their  function,   apparently,  was   to   conserve   the   financial   in- 


394     JouiiNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

terests  of  the  community  against  hasty  action  by  the  popular 
branch  of  the  legislature.  Now,  the  founders  of  the  Constitu- 
tion appear  to  have  realized  that  that  Senate  might  be  smaller 
than  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  they  did  not  probably 
anticipate  that  it  would  be  relatively  so  much  smaller,  as  it  has 
been  most  of  the  time  since  it  was  created  by  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  of  1784.  The  Senate  appears  to  have  devel- 
oped from  the  Committee  of  Safety,  which  was  elected  in  177G, 
I  believe,  from  the  Provincial  Assembly.  At  that  time  the 
Assembly  consisted,  if  I  am  right,  of  fiftj^-four  members,  and 
this  Committee  of  Safety  of  twelve,  so  that  at  the  beginning 
this  Committee  was  about  one  fourth  the  size  of  the  Assembly, 
When  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  in  1784,  the  Senate  w'as 
made  twelve  in  number,  probably  from  this  Committee  of 
Safety,  and  at  that  time  the  House  consisted  of  between  eighty 
and  ninety  members,  so  that  the  ratio  of  the  Senate  to  the 
House  was  about  one  to  seven.  The  Senate  has  a  fixed  num- 
ber, which  does  not  require  change  with  the  changes  in  popula- 
tion or  valuation,  so  the  Senate  remained  at  twelve  until  there 
was  a  Constitutional  Convention  which  proposed  a  change. 
That  did  not  occur  until  1876,  by  which  time  the  House  had 
grown  up  to  more  than  three  hundred  members.  Then  the 
membership  of  the  Senate  was  changed  to  tw^enty-four  mem- 
bers. The  House  has  increased  another  hundred  members,  and 
the  Senate  still  remains  at  twenty-four.  Now,  it  seems  to  me 
that  that  imposes  too  much  of  a  burden  on  too  few  men,  if 
twenty-four  can  veto  any  act  which  has  passed  four  hundred 
representatives. 

So  small  a  number  checking  or  stopping  the  action  of  a  body 
as  large  as  four  hundred  necessarily  are  more  or  less  criticised 
by  the  four  hundred  men  whose  actions  they  overrule.  It  is 
natural  that  a  member  of  the  House  should  say,  "Why,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate  doesn't  know  any  more  about  this  than  I 
do.  Here  are  four  hundred  of  us  who  passed  an  act,  and  it  is 
a  shame  that  twelve  or  thirteen  men,  or  a^majority  of  the  Sen- 
ate, can  sit  over  there  in  another  room  and  say  no  to  every- 
thing we  do,"  and  of  course  it  throws  more  or  less  odium  upon 
the  members  of  the  Senate. 


Mr.  Baj-ton  of  Newport  moved  that  unanimous  consent  be 
given  Mr.  Goss  of  Berlin  to  discuss  the  question  ten  minutes 
extra. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912. 

Objection  being  raised, — 
Unanimous  consent  was  not  granted. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  wan-t 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  members  of  this  Committee  to  Ar- 
ticle 25  of  the  Constitution,  which  is  under  consideration,  par- 
ticularly to  the  first  and  second  line:  "And  that  the  state  may 
be  equally  represented  in  the  Senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from 
time  to  time,  divide  the  state  into-  twenty-four  districts."  "That 
the  state  may  be  equally  represented";  I  want  to  say  to  you  in 
a  moment  that  at  the  present  time,  under  our  present  district 
system,  that  statement  is  not  true.  The  state  is  not  divided 
into  equal  districts,  except  on  a  basis  of  property.  We  have 
been  told  that  the  Senate  was  originallj^  formed  to  protect 
property.  We  have  had  abundant  proof  in  the  past  one  hundred' 
and  twenty-five  years  that  property  has  been  amply  able  to 
protect  itself,  and  we  should,  I  believe,  at  this  time  change  our 
Constitution  so  that  we  may  have  the  different  portions  of  the 
state  equally  represented  in  the  Senate,  a  condition  which 
does  not  now  prevail. 

District  No.  1  had  4,900  votes  cast  for  senator  in  the  last 
election;  District  No.  16  had  1,849;  District  No.  18  had  5,782; 
District  No.  24  had  1,930.  That  means  that  in  District  No.  16 
one  voter  had  as  much  power  in  the  election  of  senator  as  three 
voters  in  District  No.  18.  I  believe  that  is  not  what  is  con- 
templated by  the  Constitution, — "that  the  state  may  be  equally 
represented  in  the  Senate," — and  it  seems  to  me  that  should  be 
changed.  I  have  examined  the  Constitutions  of  the  states  of 
the  Union  quite  closely,  and  I  cannot  find  another  state  which 
has  the  same  provision  ns  ours,  that  the  basis  of  representation 
in  the  Senate  shall  be  property.  Massachusetts  discarded  it 
years  ago.  The  average  vote  for  senator  in  the  last  election 
was  3,326.  Of  course  the  difficulty  comes  in  districts  where 
there  are  large  property  interests  and  few  people. 

It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  that  is  not 
what  the  Constitution  contemplates,  and  I  certainly  hope  that 
the  provision  of  the  Constitution  providing  for  the  sub-divi- 
sion of  the  state  into  senatorial  districts  on  a  property  basis 
will  be  done  away  with,  as  far  as  this  Convention  can  bring  It 
about. 

Mr.  Gamnaugh  of  Manchester.— Ur.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I 
just  want  to  say  a  word  or  two  on  this  matter  at  this  time,  and 
that  is,  I  think  there  should  be  a  change  in  the  law  relating  to 


396    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  making  up  of  the  Senate,  increasing  the  number  to  whatever 
might  be  agreed  to  as  a  fair  increase,  and  making  the  basis  of 
representation  population  rather  than  taxable  propertj'.  Now, 
in  the  session  of  1905,  I  happened  to  be  a  member  of  the  Senate 
from  the  16th  District.  The  16th  District  in  the  city  of  Man- 
chester includes  Wards  1  and  2  and  those  two  wards  have  2,326 
voters.  The  18th  District  in  the  city  of  Manchester  includes 
Wards  5,  6,  8,  9  and  10;  the  number  of  voters  is  well  over 
8,000.  Now,  that  is  the  situation  which  confronts  us  in  the  city 
of  Manchester.  The  proportion,  or  rather  the  disproportion, 
is  not  so  great  in  the  17th  District,  but  in  the  16th  District  the 
senator  who  happens  to  be  elected  represents  2,326  voters;  tho 
gentleman  who  is  elected,  representing  the  18th  District,  rep- 
resents Wards  5,  6,  7,  8,  9  and  10,  and  there  are  over  8,000  voters. 
The  senator  who  represents  the  17th  District,  which  includes 
Wards  3,  4,  and  7,  represents  a  total  of  3,900  voters.  Now,  at 
this  stage  of  the  debate,  or  explanation,  that  is  about  all  I  wish 
to  say  on  this  matter.  I  want  to  bring  these  facts  before  the 
members  of  this  Committee,  as  emphasizing  the  position  which 
I  take,  that  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  Senate  of  our 
state  should  be  on  population  rather  than  the  amount  of  tax- 
able property  in  any  district.  So  far  as  the  city  of  Manches- 
ter is  concerned,  of  course,  it  may  be  said  we  would  want  thia 
because  we  shall  benefit  by  it.  I  presume  w^e  shall  benefit  by  it, 
If  this  change  is  made,  but  we  shall  benefit  by  it  because  we 
have  the  people  there, — we  have  the  population  there, — and  I 
think  the  same  basis  should  be  used  for  membership  in  the 
Senate  as  for  membership  in  the  House;  that  is,  population. 
And  if  we  are  going  to  pass  laws  here,  or  make  any  change  at 
all  in  the  matter  of  representation, — if  any  change  is  going  lo 
be  made  in  the  representation  in  the  House,  the  representation 
from  the  city  of  Manchester,  of  course,  is  going  to  be  reduced 
greatly.  According  to  the  provisions  of  one  of  the  resolu- 
tions, it  is  going  to  be  reduced  twenty-eight;  according  to  an- 
other resolution,  if  it  should  be  adopted,  we  are  going  to  have 
thirty-four  less  than  we  shall  otherwise  have.  If  the  law  re- 
mains as  it  is,  we  shall  have  fifty-nine  men  in  the  House  from 
Manchester.  One  resolution  provides  for  five,  another  for 
twenty-eight,  another  for  thirty-one,  and  so  on.  Let's  consider 
both  the  House  and  Senate  propositions  together  when  we  get 
to  them.  I  want  the  members  to  undersand  it  is  not  because 
I  am  from  the  city  of  Manchester  that  I  think  the  proper  way 
to  represent  the  people  of  this  state  is  on  the  basis  of  popula- 
tion, and  I  am  willing  to  see  the  number  of  senators  increased 


Wednesday  June  19.  1912.  397 

from  twenty-four  to  that  which  will  be  reasonable  in  the  mindvS 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Cross  of  Berlm. — I  believe  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  a 
member  has  the  right  to  speak  more  than  once.  When  my  time 
expired,  I  was  about  to  discuss  the  basis  upon  which  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate  is  founded.  The  original  basis  of  rep- 
resentation in  the  Senate  was  a  property  basis.  In  a  modified 
form,  a  property  basis  has  been  continued  to  the  present.  The 
Constitution  provides  that  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to 
time,  divide  the  state  into  districts  on  a  basis  of  valuation. 
The  last  districting  was  made  in  1876,  at  the  time  when  the 
number  of  senators  was  increased  from  twelve  to  twenty-four, 
and  naturally,  as  the  state  has  increased  in  wealth,  those  dis- 
tricts have  grown  out  of  proportion.  I  anticipate  that  very 
soon,  whether  any  change  in  the  number  of  senators  is  or  is 
not  made,  the  matter  of  redistricting  the  state  for  senatorial 
purposes  will  come  up  for  consideration.  The  number  of  dis- 
tricts being  twenty-four,  each  district  should  pay  its  twenty- 
fourth  part  of  the  $1,000,  which  is  the  basis  upon  whicli  money 
is  apportioned  to  the  various  towns  and  cities.  That  would  give 
$41,67  as  the  amount  of  state  tax,  which  should  be  paid  by  each 
district.  Now,  we  find  that  District  No.  1,  which  is  the  district 
in  which  I  live,  pays  $59.97,  or  about  $18.30,  more  than  enough 
to  entitle  it  to  a  member  in  the  Senate.  Several  of  the  dis- 
tricts pay  not  far  from  $30.00  for  the  senatorial  district.  Dis- 
trict 24  pays  $31.70.  Districts  14  and  15  each  pay  approximately 
$31.  I  couldn't  compute  exactly  what  some  of  the  districts 
paid  because  where  a  district  is  made  up  in  part  of  a  city  the 
assessment  was  made  against  the  city  as  a  whole.  In  those 
cases  the  only  way  to  compute  the  valuation  was  by  taking 
the  proportionate  part,  as  near  as  it  could  be  guessed.  The  citj-^ 
of  Manchester,  however,  pays  $162.40,  or  just  about  enough  for 
four  senators  under  the  present  system  of  apportionment.  It 
has  only  three.  So  it  appears  to  me  that  very  soon,  whether 
we  take  this  matter  up  before  this  Constitutional  Convention 
or  not,  this  question  is  sure  to  come  up,  and  there  will  have  to 
be  a  redistricting.  Moreover,  everybody  who  has  spoken  on  the 
question,  as  far  as  I  remember,  favors  representation  by  popula- 
tion, and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  the  only  proper  way^,  the 
proper  basis  upon  which  to  found  representation  in  our  Sen- 
ate. Now,  we  find  that  the  population  varies  greatly  amongst 
the  various  districts.  District  24  has  a  population  of  9,719,  while 
District  18,  which  comprises  wards  5,  6,  8,  9  and  10  of  Manches- 
ter, has  a  population  of  41,998;    I  don't  suppose  that  District 


398    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

24  will  want  to  be  wiped  out.  It  is  the  Portsmouth  district, 
taking  in  all  of  the  wards  of  Portsmouth  but  one,  and  also 
takes  in  the  town  of  Newington.  Now,  if  the  Senate  is  raised 
to  fifty  in  number  it  would  give  a  senator  to  each  8,611.  That, 
as  you  see,  would  be  ample  to  give  a  senator  to  District  24, 
and  have  about  a  thousand  overplus.  It  would  give  an  oppor- 
tunity for  evening  up  the  representation  in  other  parts  of  the 
state,  without  disturbing  the  present  districts  very  seriously, 
so  that,  for  obvious  reasons,  it  would  be  well  to  have  a  Senate 
of  about  that  size.  It  would  be  more  convenient  to  figure  out 
than  it  is  now. 

In  the  next  place,  it  would  give  us  one  senator  to  about  every 
eight  representatives.  That  is,  we  would  say  that  one  man  in 
the  upper  House  was  sufficient  to  pass  upon  the  doings  of  eiglit 
members  of  the  lower  House,  and  provide  a  check  to  any  hasty 
action  on  their  part,  and  it  would  be  getting  back  somewhere 
near  what  the  proportion  was  when  the  Constitution  was 
adopted  in  1783,  and  became  effective  in  1784.  So,  then,  I  would 
suggest, — and  will  say  I  haven't  any  very  great  desire  to  have 
any  particular  number  used, — that  if  you  conclude  to  make  a 
change  in  the  Senate,  and  conclude  to  bring  it  up  to  about 
what  the  fathers  evidently  thought  it  should  be  to  be  propor- 
tionate to  the  other  House,  you  use  a  number  somewhere  in 
the  neighborhood  of  fifty. 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury  moved  that  the  Committee  report  to 
the  Convention  that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Committee  that  the 
Senate  he  increased  and  the  division  of  districts  be  made  on 
a  basis  of  population;  and  recommend  that  all  resolutions  re- 
lating to  the  Senate  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department  with  instructions  to  report  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  increasing  the  Senate  and  that  the  division 
of  districts  be  based  upon  population. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury, — 

Mr.  Quimby  of  Claremont.—Mr.  President,  the  members  of  the 
Convention  are  here  surely  to  act  advisedly  and  for  what  they 
consider  to  be  the  best  interests  of  the  future  legislation  of 
the  state,  and  I  will  say  I  am  particularly  interested  in  these 
topics  which  we  are  discussing  this  afternoon, — the  matter  c)f 
the  number  of  our  senators  and  the  mode  of  dividing  the  state 
into  senatorial  districts.    I  am  not  especially  particular  what 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  399 

the  number  shall  be,  still  I  think  forty,  as  stated  in  the  amend- 
ment which  I  have  presented  to  the  Convention,  is  perhaps  best 
suited  to  the  conditions  of  the  state.  It  has  been  stated  upon 
the  floor  of  this  Convention  that  if  we  increase  the  Senate  we 
shall  have  to  increase  the  size  of  the  Senate  chamber,  but  I 
think  that  is  somewhat  erroneous.  The  Senate  chamber  is 
large  enough  to  accommodate  forty  members  in  its  present  size, 
without  any  crowding  whatever.  One  of  the  things  to  be  con- 
sidered in  this  matter  of  increasing  the  Senate  is,  What  is  the 
need  of  it?  And  that  is  the  important  matter.  It  has  been 
suggested  quite  frequently  here  in  this  Convention  that  there 
is  more  or  less  lobbying  done  here  among  the  legislators.  Now, 
that  being  the  case,  which  it  is  recognized  to  be,  then  let's 
have  the  Senate  a  little  larger,  so  that  our  senators  will  not 
be  so  much  embarassed  by  the  lobbyists  that  come  before  them, 
but  they  will  be  a  body  that  will  not  be  so  easily  influenced  b3'' 
one  or  two  orators  who  may  appear  to  them,  but  that  they 
will  get  back  to  the  people  who  elected  them,  and  find  out  their 
desires,  and  then  come  to  the  Senate  prepared  to  vote  as  the 
people  at  home  want  them  to,  and  not  as  two  or  three  orators 
may  dictate.  It  has  also  been  brought  out,  and  I  do  not  see 
why  there  should  be  this  inequality  or  unevenness  between  the 
number  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House.  It  seems  to  me  out 
of  proportion.  If  you  reduce  the  number  of  the  House  to  about 
300  members,  then  you  can  increase  the  Senate  to  forty  mem- 
bers, and  you  will  then  have  a  body  of  legislators  that  is  more 
evenly  balanced.  The  proportionate  number  of  the  senators  to 
the  representatives  would  be  miich  smaller  than  it  would  aver- 
age in  most  of  the  states  in  the  United  States.  Now,  we  come 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  amendment,  which  has  been  quite 
fully  discussed  by  former  speakers,  that  of  districting  the  state 
according  to  the  population  and  not  according  to  property.  I 
hope  this  feature  of  the  resolution  will  go  through,  and  that 
the  Convention  will  see  fit  to  adopt  some  measure  which  will 
increase  our  Senate  and  provide  a  more  equal  way  of  district- 
ing, and  I  hope  at  this  time,  as  we  report  progress  on  this 
measure  to  the  Legislative  or  Standing  Committee,  to  whom 
these  measures  go,  that  we  will  not  state  the  number  thirty- 
six,  as  has  been  suggested  by  this  resolution,  but  leave  all  these 
matters  open  to  the  Committee,  and  let  them  judge  whether 
it  shall  be  36,  50  or  40  or  31.  I  think  we  have  one  bill  for  31, 
one  for  36,  one  for  40  and  two  for  50.  Therefore  I  recommend, 
or  hope,  that  the  Committee  will  report  all  of  these  measures 
favorably,  and  let  the  Standing  Committee  decide  which  is  best. 


400  Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Quimby  of  Claremont  moved  to  amend  the  .motion  by 
inserting  the  words  "do  now  rise  and,''  after  the  word,  "Com- 
mittee." 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury  accepted  the  amendment. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury  as 
amended, — 

Mr.  VpMm  of  Claremwit. — I  think  in  the  matter  of  the  size 
of  the  Senate  in  Xew  Hampshire  that  it  has  always  been  dispro- 
portionate. The  number  of  senators  is  much  less  in  this  state 
than  in  the  other  states.  We  have  a  very  much  larger  House 
than  other  states,  and  the  smallest  Senate.  I  believe  that  in 
the  long"  run  it  would  be  for  the  greater  good  of  the  public  if 
our  Senate  should  be  increased  to  forty-eight  or  fifty  members, 
and  that  our  House  be  decreased  to  350  or  300  members.  That 
would  make  the  ratio  one  senator  to  seven  or  eight  representa- 
tives, and  it  would  be  a  far  more  proportionate  representation 
than  the  present  one,  and  I  hope  this  matter  will  not  be  lost 
in  the  preliminary  shuffle  or  by  any  possibility  be  overlooked 
when  the  question  of  the  number  of  representatives  for  th« 
House  comes  up,  because  the  two  things  are  associated,  or 
ought  to  be.  I  have  not  prepared  a  motion  to  offer  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook  moved  to  amend  by  inserting  the 
words,  "and  that  the  Senate  consist  of  fifty  members.'* 

Mr.  Wdson  of  Nashua. — I  hope  the  gentleman  from  Colebrook 
will  withdraw  his  motion.  There  is  not  a  quorum  here,  and 
the  motion  would  make  trouble  if  insisted  upon,  and  probably 
adjourn  the  Convention  without  making  any  progress. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook. — I  am  not  particular  about  the  num- 
ber, but  I  think  it  should  be  increased  above  the  present  num- 
ber. 

Mr.  Johnson  withdrew  his  motion. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury,' — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  401 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Warren  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  whom  wexe  referred  all  resolutions  relating  to  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate,  having  considered  the  same,  report 
that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Committee  that  the  Senate  be  in- 
creased and  the  division  of  districts  be  made  on  a  basis  of  pop- 
ulation; that  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  Senate  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  with  instructions 
to  report  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  increasing  the 
Senate,  and  that  the  division  of  districts  be  based  upon  popu- 
lation. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendations  adopted. 

Change;  of  Refekeinc'E. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke  moved  that  the  orders 
whereby  Eesolution  Xo.  28,  Providing  for  Election  by  Plurali- 
ty Vote  of  the  Governor  and  Other  Officials,  and  Eesolution 
No.  55,  Relating  to  Election  of  Senators,  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  and  Resolution  No.  34, 
Relating  to  the  Election  of  Officials  by  Plurality  Vote,  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  be  vacated,  and  the 
same  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Execu- 
tive Department. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont  moved  that  the  orders  whereby  Res- 
olution No.  44,  Relating  to  Councillor  Districts,  and  Resolu- 
tion No.  57,  Relating  to  the  Council,  were  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  be  vacated  and  the  same  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clement  of  Warren  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  Resolution  No.  38,  Relating  to  Corporation  Sala- 
ries and  Dividends. 


402      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Broderick  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Clement  of  WatTen. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  we  have  not  had  any  really  radical  proposition  be- 
fore us,  and  I  understand  that  this  Convention  will  not  con- 
sider such  a  proposition  favorably,  but  I  wish  to  present  it,  and 
I  will  do  so  in  the  fewest  words  possible.  We  are  here  to  lay 
a  foundation  for  future  legislation,  and  we  should  set  our 
faces  to  the  rising  and  not  to  the  setting  sun.  To  go  back  to 
primal  causes,  this  question  arises,  Why  is  a  trust  formed?  That 
takes  up  the  great  question  before  the  people  of  this  country. 
Why  is  a  trust  formed?  There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  it, 
that  trusts  are  formed  in  order  to  earn  bigger  dividends.  I 
claim  there  is  but  one  issue  before  the  people  of  this  country, 
and  that  is  the  question  of  usurious  dividends, — usur}-.  W^a 
know  many  of  the  corporations  of  today,  commencing  with  our 
great  insurance  companies,  not  only  pay  big  direct  dividends, 
but  they  have  indirect  dividends  in  another  form,  that  is,  biij 
salaries.  Salaries  in  New  York  have  been  as  high  as  $100,000. 
In  Massachusetts,  the  president  of  the  American  Woolen  Com- 
pany receives  $100,000.  Gentlemen,  I  don't  believe  that,  as  a 
matter  of  moral  right  and  justice,  any  man's  services  are  worth 
$100,000  annually,  because  the  men  under  him,  with  the  small 
salaries,  are  the  ones  who  do  the  actual  work.  Now,  it  is  recog- 
nized that  if  there  are  any  conservative  institutions,  they  are 
the  religious  institutions.  Eeligion  has  always  been  the  con- 
servator of  conservatisrh.  Xow,  then,  Gentlemen,  to  show  yon 
that  the  religious  people  of  this  country,  and  the  most  conserva- 
tive institutions,  are  taking  up  these  questions,  I  want  to  read 
this  statement,  which  was  adopted  unanimously  by  the  bishops 
at  the  Quadrennial  Methodist  Episcopal  Conference  in  Minne- 
apolis recently,  and  sent  out  to  the  people: 

"We  live  in  an  age  in  which  the  vast  enterprises  essential  to 
the  progress  of  the  world  require  the  association  of  men  of 
large  means  under  corporate  management.  Out  of  this  neces- 
sity have  grown   serious  wrongs  and  consequent  resistance. 

"Organized  capital  stands  indicted  at  the  bar  of  public  judg- 
ment for  the  gravest  crimes  against  the  common  wetfare. 
Among  the  counts  in  that  indictment  are  such  as  these: 

"1.  Conspiring  to  advance  prices  on  the  staple  commodities 
indispensable  to  the  life,  well-being  and  progress  of  the  people. 

"2.  Resorting  to  adulteration  of  foods,  fabrics  and  materials 
in  order  to  increase  profits  already  excessive. 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  403 

"3.  Destroying  the  competition  in  trade,  through  which  re- 
lief might  be  expected  under  normal  conditions. 

"4.  Suborning  legislation,  and  thus  robbing  the  people  of  the 
first  orderly  recourse  of  the  weak  against  the  strong. 

"These  are  sins  against  humanity.  If  God  hates  any  sin 
above  another,  it  must  be  the  robbery  of  the. poor  and  defense- 
less. Otherwise  His  love  fails  when  it  is  most  needed  and 
might  find  its  largest  opportunity.  There  is  no  betrayal  more 
base  than  that  which  uses  the  hospitality  of  a  house  to  plunder 
its  inmates,  unless  it  be  that  form  of  treason  which  so  per- 
verts the  purpose  and  machinery  of  popular  government  as  to 
turn  its  power  against  the  people  who  trust  and  support  it. 
This  is  not  saying  that  all  corporations  deal  treacherously  with 
the  people.  There  are  honorable  exceptions.  But  enough  is 
known  of  the  heartless  greed  that  fattens  off  the  hunger-driven 
millions  to  warrant  the  strongest  protective  associations  on 
the  part  of  the  people." 

Like  the  prophets  of  Israel,  the  Methodist  bishops  have  trans- 
lated the  truth  of  the  eternal  into  the  terms  of  current  life. 

This  resolution  which  I  have  placed  before  you  proposes  a 
limitation  on  dividends  and  salaries  of  corporations,  where  they 
draw  $100,000,  or  where  they  pay  big  dividends, — or  what  I  call 
usury.  There  is  no  reason  why  you  should  not  forbid  exces- 
sive dividends  in  corporations,  and  I  contend  this  measure  is 
not  a  radical  one.  Two  professors  have  gone  out  from  Welles- 
ley  College,  one  of  the  foremost  colleges  in  New  England,  pub- 
licly maintaining  that  money  should  receive  no  interest  what- 
ever. That  is  radical.  But  that  shows  the  character  of  the 
real  questions  before  the  people,  and  it  is  time  that  we  hard- 
headed  business  men,  as  legislators,  should  take  them  into  con- 
sideration, and  know  what  is  going  on  along  these  lines.  That 
is  the  only  reason  why  I  have  brought  this  resolution  before 
this  Convention.  I  do  not  expect  that  you  will  take  favorable 
action  on  it,  but  I  do  predict  that  the  legislation  of  the  future, 
Gentlemen,  twenty  years  hence,  will  take  cognizance  of  the 
lines  that  are  here  laid  dowm,  and  that  you  will  need  constitu- 
tional foundation  for  legislation  of  this  kind.  I  thank  you,  Gen- 
tlemen. 

Mr.  WMtcJier  of  Eav^rliill.—l  rise  to  make  a  motion,  but,  be- 
fore making  it,  I  only  wish  that  the  gentleman  from  Warren, 
who  dilated  on  the  action  of  the  general  conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  church  that  has  just  closed  its  session  in 
Minneapolis  might  have  said  that  they  didn't  regulate  the  sal- 
aries^— that  a  large  proportion  of  the  ministry  of  that  church 


404    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

are  not  receiving  salaries  of  more  than  $500,  and  that  these 
bishops,  of  whom  he  has  spoken,  are  allowed  $5,000  each,  with 
an  allowance  of  $1,000  for  house  rent  in  the  cities  where  the 
episcopal  residences  are  established.  I  only  mention  that  be- 
cause that  general  conference  has  been  brought  in  herr  as  an 
example  of  what  we  ought  to  do. 

Mr.  Wliitcher  of  Haverhill  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
^ow  rise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  it  is  inexpe- 
dient to  amend  the  Constitution  as  proposed  in  the  resolution. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hiU  — 

Mr.  Wdson  of  NasMa.—l  rise  to  second  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Haverhill.  He  and  I  are  in  perfect  accord  today. 
I  also  wish  to  say  a  word  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from 
Warren,  Mr.  Clement,  inasmuch  as  his  argument  why  we  should 
change  the  Constitution  is  based  upon  the  action  of  the  Metho- 
dist Conference  at  Minneapolis.  I  don't  know  but  it  would  be 
more  effective  and  more  proper  to  recall  the  action  of  the 
Methodist  Conference  nearer  home,  namely,  in  the  southern 
part  of  New  Hampshire.  In  their  closing  hours,  when  they  say 
there  wasn't  a  quorum  present, — I  couldn't  say  because  I  wasn't 
there;  I  was  out  of  town  that  daj^  or  I  might  have  been  there, — 
they  endorsed  as  the  leading  citizen  of  this  country  Theodor*; 
Roosevelt.  Whether  that  ought  to  be  put  in  the  Constitution 
along  with  this  proposed  amendment  is  for  you  to  determine. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover. — I  want  to  say  a  few  words  relative  to 
this  amendment.  Since  this  Convention  has  been  in  session, 
some  have  been  charged  with  being  connected  with  those  who 
are  in  favor  of  corporations.  I  was  opposed  to  the  initiative 
and  referendum  because  I  believe  it  is  revolutionary,  and  an  in- 
sidious attack  upon  Constitutional  government.  I  was  opposed 
to  the  other  measures  of  that  nature  because  I  believe  that 
the  Constitution  ought  to  protect  the  humblest  citizen  in  thft 
land,  and  is  not  for  the  purpose,  as  the  gentlemen  have  charged, 
of  protecting  corporations;  but  there  is  a  distinction  between 
corporations  and  an  individual.  An  individual  has  certain  rights 
which  cannot,  or  ought  not,  to  be  taken  from  him,  not  even  by 
a  majority  of  the  people,  and  when  the  majority  of  the  peop^.e 
deprive  him,  or  attempt  to,  of  certain  inherent  rights,  as  stated 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  then  comes  the  time  when 
he  has  the  right  to  retaliate.  I  was  opposed  to  these  amend- 
ments, as  I  have  stated  before,  because  I  believe  they  are  dan- 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  405 

gerous, — not  that  I  don't  trust  the  people,  but  I  believe  it  is 
dangerous  to  allow  any  majority  to  take  certain  rights  from 
the  people.  Corporations  do  not  stand  that  way.  A  corporation 
is  born  in  the  halls  of  the  legislature.  It  has  not  even  the  right 
to  exist  without  the  consent  of  the  legislature.  If  a  man  is 
engaged  in  manufacturing,  you  have  no  right,  in  my  judgment, 
to  inquire  what  he  is  making,  or  to  attempt  to  fix  the  salaries 
of  his  ofiicers.  A  corporation  is  different;  you  can  control  it; 
it  has  not  even  the  right  to  exist,  and,  the  moment  it  attempts 
to  do  things  improperly  and  wrongly,  that  moment  its  creator 
has  a  right  to  destroy  its  creature.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is 
best  to  give  that  power  to  the  people,  and  I  don't  like  to  tinkei* 
with  the  Constitution.  I  think  it  is  about  right.  They  talk  about 
the  railroads.  I  am  not  going  to  say  anything  in  particular 
about  the  railroad;  it  has  been  the  cleanest  of  all  our  corpora- 
tions, as  far  as  oppressing  the  people  is  concerned.  Have  you  in- 
quired into  the  salary,  large  salaries,  of  the  officials?  I  know, 
and  you  know,  probably  ofiicials  who  received,  ten  or  fifteen 
years  ago,  a  thousand  or  fifteen  hundred  dollars  a  year  are  now 
put  up  to  $5,000  or  $6,000.  They  are  voted  those  salaries  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  those  people  to  receive  an  unwarranted 
compensation  for  services.  The  man  who  is  working  in  the 
mills  at  Lawrence  gets  $1.50.  What  do  the  ofiicials  get?  I  think 
we  have  a  perfect  right  to  know.  No  doctrine  of  personal  rights 
applies  to  corporations;  we  make  the  corporation  and  we  have 
a  right  to  control  it,  and  it  seems  to  me  one  of  the  troubles  lies 
in  the  fact  that  in  an  endeavor  to  correct  abuses  we  might 
strike  you  and  me  as  individuals,  because  I  have  no  sympathy 
with  socialism,  I  have  no  sympathy  with  those  who  think  they 
know  better  what  life  I  should  lead  than  I  do  myself,  provided 
that  I  grant  to  my  fellow  citizens  the  equal  right  to  do  as  they 
see  fit.  I  have  no  sympathy  with  the  tendency  in  that  line. 
What  causes  that  tendency?  It  has  been  the  injustice  that  th«3 
people  have  seen  and  the  unfairness  of  corporations  that  we 
have  created.  This  amendment  permits  the  legislature  to  fix 
the  salary,  or  to  examine  into  it,  and  look  after  the  dividends, 
and  may  forbid  corporations  to  over-value  their  property.  That 
has  been  the  great  trouble.  There  are  corporations  that  are 
doing  business  today  that  a  few  years  ago  held  property,  its 
honest  valuation,  its  machinery,  its  mills,  its  water  power,  we 
will  say,  at  $50,000  or  $100,000.  They  have  got  together  and 
formed  a  trust.  We  have  a  right  to  know  what  they  are  doing. 
This  gives  us  the  right.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  principle  embodied 
in  this  resolution. 


406    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — I  made  a  pledg-e  with  myself  about  fif- 
teen minutes  ag-o  that  I  would  not  speak  again  before  this  Con- 
vention while  it  was  in  session.  I  am  compelled  to  do  so  by 
something  I  discovered  in  our  Constitution.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  is  not  a  radical  proposition  that  is  put  forward  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Warren,  Mr.  Clement,  because,  if  I  remember  the 
acts  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1902,  ten  years  ago, 
a  member  of  that  Convention,  a  former  senator,  Hon.  William 
E.  Chandler,  if  I  mistake  not,  introduced  an  amendment,  which 
was  submitted  by  the  Convention  and  later  adopted  by  the 
people,  and  I  will  read  it  to  you.     It  is  Article  82,  the  last  part : 

"Free  and  fair  competition  in  the  trades  and  industries  is 
an  inherent  and  essential  right  of  the  people  and  should  be 
protected  against  all  monopolies  and  conspiracies  which  tend 
to  hinder  or  destroy  it.  The  size  and  functions  of  all  corpora- 
tions should  be  so  limited  and  regulated  as  to  prohibit  fic- 
titious capitalization,  and  provision  should  be  made  for  the  su- 
pervision and  government  thereof: —  Therefore,  all  just  power 
possessed  by  the  state  is  hereby  granted  to  the  General  Court  to 
enact  laws  to  prevent  fhe  operations  wTfhin  .the  state  of  all 
persons  and  associations,  and  all  trusts  and  corporations,  for- 
eign or  domestic,  and  the  officers  thereof,  who  endeavor  to 
raise  the  price  of  any  article  of  commerce  or  to  destroy  free 
and  fair  competition  in  the  trades  and  industries  through  com- 
bination, conspiracy,  monopoly,  or  any  other  unfair  means;  to 
control  and  regulate  the  acts  of  all  such  persons,  associations, 
corporations,  trusts,  and  officials  doing  business  within  the 
state;  to  prevent  fictitious  capitalization;  and  to  authorize 
civil  and  criminal  proceedings  in  respect  to  all  the  wrongs 
herein  declared  against." 

I  believe  that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  War- 
ren, Mr.  Clement  is  absolutely  unnecessary,  when  we  have  this 
provision  already  in  the  Constitution.  I  think  it  covers  all  the 
things  that  he  advocates  in  his  amendment. 

On  a  viva  wee  vote  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Broderick  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  38,  Relating  to 
Corporation  Salaries  and  Dividends,  havinpj  considered  the 
same,  report  the  following  resolution: — 


Wednesday,  June  19,  1912.  407 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

CHAXGE   OF  ReF'EEENOE. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Xewport  moved  that  the  order  wherehy  Ees- 
olution  No.  3,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the 
Constitution,  Resolution  Xo.  11,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of 
Amending  the  Constitution,  and  Resolution  No.  16,  Relating 
to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution,  were  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Wliole,  be  vacated,  and  the  same 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the 
Constitution  and  Other  Proposed  Amendments. 

Mt\  Gmmmugh  of  Mancli€Stei\ — I  think  the  matter  of  the 
amendments  proposed  by  myself  and  Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford 
ought  first  to  be  considered  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  As 
was  sugg-ested  this  afternoon,  it  might  be  done  tomorrow.  I 
would  suggest  that  that  matter  be  left  in  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  withdrew  his  motion. 

Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont  moved  that  the  order  whereby  Res- 
olution No.  8,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  Certain  Officers,  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  \\niole,  be  vacated,  and  the 
same  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Execu- 
tive Department. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr,  Dean  of  Danbury  moved  that  all  Standing  Committees 
be  instructed  to  report  to  the  Convention  all  resolutions  in 
their  possession  not  later  than  Friday  morning,  June  21,  at  11 
o^clock. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Cavammigh  of  Mamchester. — If  the  matter  of  Resolution  No. 
10,  Relating  to  Voting  Precincts,  is  in  order  at  this  time,  I  wish 
to  state  that  it  appears  that,  according  to  the   opinion  of  the 


408    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

judges  of  our  Supreme  Court  rendered  recently,  the  legislature 
has  authority  at  the  present  time  to  establish  these  precincts. 
As  it  would  be  unwise  to  encumber  the  ballot  with  unnecessary 
amendments,  I  would  suggest  that  the  resolution  be  recalled 
from  the  Committee  which  now  has  it  under  consideration,  and 
that  the  resolution  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  order  where- 
by Resolution  No.  10,  Relating  to  Voting  Precincts,  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to 
the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  be 
vacated,  and  that  the  vote  whereby  the  Convention  agreed  to 
the  amendment  proposed  in  the  resolution  be  reconsidered. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cavanaugh, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  that  the  amendment  be  agreed  to  by  the  Con- 
vention,— 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  the  Convention  ad- 
journed at  5.20  o'clock. 

THURSDAY,  June  20,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  Charles  C.  Gar- 
land. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hill  of  Concord,  the  further  reading  of 
the  Journal  was  dispensed  with. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Bean  of  Franklin  was  granted  leave  of  absence  for  Fri- 
day, on  account  of  important  business. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  409- 

Committee  Reports. 

Mr.  Buxton  of  Boscawen,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Res- 
olution  'No.  4:5,  Relating  to  Residence  Qualification  of  Voters^ 
having  considered  the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  follow- 
ing resolutions: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  said  resolution,  sufficient  authority  now  being 
in  the  legislature,  covering  the  subject  matter. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
No.  46,  Relating  to  the  Qualification  of  Voters,  report  the 
same  in  a  new  draft,  with  the  following  recommendation: 

That  said  resolution  in  its  new  draft  be  agreed  to  by  the- 
Convention. 

RESiOL.uTio'N  No.  46  IN  ITS  New  Draft. 
Relating  to  the  Qualification  of  Voters. 

Resolved,  That  Article  11  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be  amended 
by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  "and  provided 
further,  that  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eli- 
gible to  office  under  the  Constitution  of  this  state  who  shall 
have  been  convicted  of  treason,  bribery,  or  any  wilful  violation 
of  the  election  laws  of  this  state  or  of  the  United  States;  but 
the  Supreme  Court  may,  on  notice  to  the  attorney-general  re- 
store the  privileges  of  an  elector  to  any  person  who  may  have 
forfeited  them  by  conviction  of  such  offences."  so  that  Article 
11  shall  read: 

Art.  11.  All  elections  ought  to  be  free;  and  every  inhabi- 
tant of  the  state,  having  the  proper  qualifications,  has  equal 
right  to  elect  and  be  elected  into  office;  but  no  person  shall 
have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the  Con- 


410    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

stitution  of  this  state,  who  shall  not  he  ahle  to  read  "the  Con- 
stitution in  the  English  language,  and  to  write,  provided,  how- 
ever, that  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  any  person  pre- 
vented by  a  physical  disability  from  complying  with  its  requi- 
sitions, nor  to  any  person  who  now  has  the  right  to  vote,  nor 
to  any  person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or  upwards  on 
the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1904;  and  provided  furtJier,. 
that  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to 
office  under  the  Constitution  of  this  state  who  shall  have  been 
convicted  of  treason,  bribery,  or  any  wilful  violation  of  the 
election  laws  of  this  state  or  of  the  United  States;  but  the  Su- 
preme Court  may,  on  notice  to  the  attorney-general  restore 
the  privileges  of  an  elector  to  any  person  who  may  have  for- 
feited them  by  conviction  of  such  offences. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exet€)\—MT.  President  and  Gentlemen,  it  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  needless  to  make  any  speech  on  this  subject 
at  this  time.  I  merely  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention,  or 
such  as  are  interested  in  this  resolution,  to  the  fact  that  the 
only  chang-e  made  in  the  resolution  as  originally  introduced 
is  to  strike  out  all  offenses  not  relating  to  elections,  with  the 
exception  of  treason,  and  to  give  the  power  of  restoring  rights 
of  suffrage  to  the  Supreme  Court  rather  than  to  the  legislature. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  was  accepted,  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  Committee  adopted,  and  the  resolution  in  its 
new  draft  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of 
Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the 
Convention. 

•  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  called  for  the  Special  Order  for 
10.32  o'clock,  the  same  being  Resolution  No.  7,  Relating  to 
Female  Suffrage. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill, to  substitute  the  report  of  the  minority.  Resolved,  That 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  resolution  be  agreed  to  by  the 
Convention;  for  the  report  of  the  majority,  Resolved,  That  it 
is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  proposed  in  the 
resolution, — 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  411 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  moved  that  a  vote  on  the 
question  be  taken  at  12  o'clock  today. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill to  vote  at  12  o'clock, — 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danhury. — A  very  large  number  of  gentlemen  here 
desire  to  be  heard  on  this  amendment.  It  seems  to  me,  as  it 
is  now  quarter  of  eleven,  that  you  are  limiting  the  debate  to  a 
very  short  time  for  each  speaker. 

Mr.  Donigan  of  Newbury  moved  to  amend  by  making  the 
time  12.30  o'clock. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Donigan  of  Newbury, 
to  amend  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill, 
to  take  a  vote  at  12  o'clock, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill, to  substitute  the  report  of  the  minority  for  that  of  the 
majority,— 

Mr.  WMtcher  of  HaverJdll. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  in 
1902  the  Constitutional  Convention  sent  to  the  people  a  pro- 
posed amendment,  striking  the  word  "male"  from  the  Constitu- 
tion by  a  vote  of  143  to  94.  That  amendment  was  voted  upon  in 
the  March  following,  and  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  21,788 
against  the  amendment  to  13,089  in  favor.  The  question  has 
been  asked  more  than  once,  Why  send  this  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  people  again?  I  think  there  are  good  and  suf- 
ficient reasons  why  it  should  be  submitted  to  the  people, 
reasons  growing  out  of  what  I  regard  to  be  a  change  in  pub- 
lic sentiment  during  the  ten  years  which  have  elapsed  since 
the  amendment  was  submitted,  and  which  is  indicated  by  the 
attitude  that  leading  male  citizens,  representing  all  shades  of 
political  opinion  and  belief,  have  declared,  and  I  will  take  the 
time  of  the  Convention, — our  Standing  Committees  consist  of 
twenty, — I  vdll  take  the  time  of  the  Convention  to  name  twenty 


412     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  those  representative  men,  saying-,  at  the  same  time,  that  I 
might  extend  the  list  almost  indefinitely. 

I  will  name  such  men  as  Robert  P.  Bass,  Jacob  H.  Gallinger, 
Henry  B.  Quinby,  Frank  A.  Musgrove,  Samuel  D.  Felker,  Oliver 
E.  Branch,  Lyford  A.  Merrow,  Solon  A.  Carter,  Clarence  E.  Carr» 
Gordon  Woodbury,  Winston  Churchill,  John  M.  Gile,  Henry  H. 
Metcalf,  Henry  F.  Hollis,  Daniel  C.  Eemich,  Sherman  E.  Bur- 
roughs, Herbert  O.  Hadley,  Robert  J.  Merrill,  William  B.  Rotch, 
George  T.  Cruft.  If  these  names  do  not  represent  w^hat  we 
recognize  as  every  possible  shade  of  opinion  in  our  state,  I 
do  not  know  names  that  can  be  representative. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  amendment,  the  question  of  municipal 
suffrage  for  women  came  before  the  legislature  of  1905.  The 
Judiciary  Committee  made  a  favorable  report  upon  it  of  7  to 
2.  It  was  made  a  special  order,  but  came  up  so  late  in  the 
session  that  it  did  not  come  to  a  vote. 

In  1907  the  municipal  suffrage  question  was  reported  by  the 
same  Committee  on  Judiciary  unfavorably,  and  a  roll-call  dis- 
closed a  vote  of  77  in  favor  of  it  to  224  against  it,  and  it  was 
indefinitely  postponed. 

In  1909  it  was  favorably  reported  bj'  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, and  the  vote  was  115  against  it  and  86  in  favor,  and,  two 
thirds  not  voting,  it  necessarily  went  over  into  unfinished  busi- 
ness and  was  not  called  up  again. 

In  1911  there  was  a  unanimous  report  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  of  which  my  esteemed  friend  from  Moultonborough^ 
Mr.  French,  was  a  member,  and  it  was  defeated  on  roll-call  by 
a  vote  of  121  in  favor  of,  to  160  against.  You  will  note,  Mr» 
President,  that  there  was  a  steady  increase,  so  far  as  our  legis- 
lature was  concerned,  in  favor  of  conferring  suffrage  upon 
women. 

Since  that  amendment  was  submitted,  the  State  Grange,  a 
numerous  body,  which  had  voted  adversely  upon  the  proposi- 
tion several  times,  the  Sta\e  Grange  representing  the  rural  dis- 
tricts and  rural  sections  of  the  state,  has  voted  emphatically 
in  favor  of  equal  suffrage.  The  Federation  of  Labor,  represent- 
ing, as  I  may  say,  the  great  masses  in  our  state,  has  also  voted 
as  emphatically  in  favor  of  equal  suffrage.  I  think,  Sir,  that 
there  has  been  a  change  in  public  sentiment  sufficient  to  war- 
rant the  submission  of  this  proposition  again  to  the  people. 

Furthermore,  Mr,  President,  I  do  not  believe  that  any  ques- 
tion is  ever  settled  until  it  is  settled  rightly,  and  I  believe  in 
the  submission  of  this  amendment,  because  it  is  an  amendment 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  413 

in  the  interest  of  equal  rights,  justice,  fair  play  and  fair  deal- 
ing. Two  extended  hearings  have  been  held  before  the  Spe- 
cial Committee,  and  the  chief  arguments  that  have  been  ad- 
vanced against  the  conferring  of  suffrage  upon  women  have 
been  that  the  women  themselves  do  not  want  it,  and  the  old 
argument  that  there  should  be  a  bayonet  behind  every  ballot. 
I  have  the  highest  respect  for  the  women,  the  estimable 
women,  representative  women,  who  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mittee in  opposition  to  this  amendment.  They  said  they  did 
not  wish  to  be  burdened  with  additional  duties;  they  did  not 
wish  to  be  burdened  with  the  ballot,  but,  Sir,  believing,  as  I  do, 
in  their  conscientiousness,  in  their  willingness  to  perform  any 
duty  placed  upon  them,  I  believe  the  very  women  who  opposed 
it  would  be  those  who  would  exercise  the  right  to  vote  were 
the  right  given  them.  As  for  the  bayonet  behind  the  ballot,  as 
for  women  being  deprived  because  they  do  not  enter  the  field 
as  soldiers,  why,  Sir,  as  I  came  through  Doric  Hall  this  morn- 
ing, I  saw  hanging,  and  hanging  appropriately,  in  that  hall, 
representing  the  heroes  of  the  state,  the  portrait  of  Harriet  P. 
Dame,  representing  scores  and  hundreds  of  women,  who,  in  the 
great  struggle  for  the  Union,  toiled  and  sacrificed  and  suffered 
and  ren^^ered  services  equal  to  the  services  of  any  man  in  th« 
field. 

I  have  in  mind,  Sir,  too,  the  women  on  the  farms  and  hill- 
sides of  New  Hampshire,  the  women  in  the  tenements  in  our 
•cities,  who  remained  at  home,  sacrificed,  suffered  untold  agonies, 
as  fathers,  sons  and  brothers  had  gone  out  in  the  field,  women 
who  were  back  of  the  men  in  the  field,  and  women  to  whom  all 
honor  is  due. 

I  believe,  Sir,  in  equal  rights,  in  the  square  deal,  in  fair  play. 
I  believe.  Sir,  that  the  ballot  of  this  country,  upon  which  we 
depend  for  the  solution  of  the  complex  problems  that  confront 
lis,  needs  the  votes  of  the  women  more  than  the  women  need 
the  ballot.  I  believe.  Sir,  that  had  we  one  hundred  women  in 
Chicago  today  associated  with  some  nine  hundred  mien,  the 
disgusting  exhibition  to  which  the  American  people  have  been 
treated  for  the  last  three  days  would  never  have  occurred. 

I  believe,  Sir,  that  right  is  right, — right  is  right, — and  that 
right  will  prevail.  I  hope  that  the  minority  report  may  be 
substituted  for  that  of  the  majority. 

Mr.  Dorvigan  of  Newbury. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  am  not  going  to  occupy  more  than  a  minute  or 
two  of  your  time,  but  I  have  a  message  to  deliver  to  you.  I 
tiave  a  message  to  deliver  to  you  from  that  splendid  body  of 


414    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

New  Hampshire  women  who  came  before  the  Committee  on 
Woman's  Suffrage  to  protest  against  having  the  ballot  thrust 
upon  them.  That  splendid  bodj'  of  w^omen  told  that  Commit- 
tee, Gentlemen,  that  they  had  at  home,  in  their  homes,  all  the 
affairs  that  they  can  attend  to  now.  They  asked  that  Com- 
mittee, and  they  asked  you.  Gentlemen,  not  to  thrust  the  bal- 
lot upon  them.  They  asked  you  to  let  them  stay  at  home  ancl 
attend  to  their  homes  and  their  firesides  and  their  children^ 
and  I  want  just  to  deliver  their  message  to  you,  Gentlemen. 

I  believe,  Gentlemen,  that  that  body  of  women  who  appeared 
before  the  Committee  represent  ninety  percent  of  the  women  of 
New  Hampshire.  I  have  no  doubt  in  my  own  mind  that  ninety 
percent  of  the  women  of  New  Hampshire  were  well  represented 
by  that  splendid  body  of  women,  who  protested  so  eloquently 
against  having  the  ballot  thrust  upon  them. 

Gentlemen,  vote  no. 

Mr.  Bemi  of  Belmont. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  it  was 
my  privilege  twenty-five  years  ago  this  summer  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  legislature  and  vote  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage, 
as  it  was  then  presented  to  the  legislature.  I  have  never  seen 
any  time  during  the  intervening  years  when  I  regretted  the 
action  that  I  then  took.  I  have  not  inquired  especiallj^  whether 
the  women  desired  the  ballot  or  not.  If  it  is  their  right,  they 
should  have  the  privilege,  whether  they  exercise  it  or  not.  If 
we  could  imagine  a  condition  of  chaos  where  there  were  no 
rules  nor  regulations  governing  society,  and  we  were  meeting 
together  in  groups  for  that  purpose,  I  don't  believe  that  the 
proposition  would  be  made  to  exclude  women  from  participating 
in  bringing  that  about.  I  think  they  would  be  accorded  that 
privilege  with  the  same  readiness  that  it  is  given  them  now 
in  the  various  social  organizations  in  which  they  have  the 
privilege  of  membership.  No  question  is  ever  raised  in  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Grange,  or  of  the  church,  or  any  other  body 
in  which  they  have  the  privilege  of  membership,  of  excluding 
them  from  the  right  to  vote. 

I  know  objections  have  been  raised  on  account  of  physical 
limitations.  If  that  is  applied  to  the  men,  then  a  vast  number 
will  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  All  men  are  not 
capable  physically  of  being  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  soldiers 
or  woodchoppers,  but  that  does  not  deprive  them  of  the  right 
of  suffrage.  And  we  hear  it  stated  that  the  natural  sphere  of 
woman  is  in  the  home;  that  it  is  her  duty  to  devote  her  life 
work  exclusively  to  the  upbuilding  and  uplifting  of  the  home, 
all  of  which  I  subscribe  to  most  heartily.     The  home  would  be 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  416 

incomplete,  it  would  be  vacant  and  void  if  there  were  not  re- 
vealed within  its  sacred  precincts,  the  face  of  the  wife,  the 
mother,  the  sister  or  the  daughter,  showing  at  what  a  height 
woman  is  placed  by  modern  civilization,  and  yet  there  is  no 
department  of  life  more  dependent  upon  the  laws  that  govern 
than  is  the  home.  Xo  matter  whether  those  laws  be  of  pro- 
bate, criminal  laws,  temperance  laws,  or  any  other  kind,  the 
home  is  vitallj'  interested  and  affected  by  them  all. 

In  the  first  Assembly  of  this  state,  after  the  state  severed 
her  allegiance  to  Great  Britain,  held  in  Exeter  in  1776,  the  mem- 
bership of  that  Convention  w^as  founded  entirely  upon  the 
home,  groups  of  one  hundred  families  being  required  to  give 
membership  in  that  body.  It  was  then  considered  and  conceded 
that  the  interests  of  the  home  were  vital  in  all  matters  of  legis- 
lation, and  now%  Gentlemen,  shall  we  say  that  only  a  portion 
of  the  home  shall  have  any  right  or  voice  in  saying  what  the 
laws  shall  be  that  govern  them?  Shall  w^e  leave  it  to  the  male 
portion  of  the  home  to  say  whether  a  probate  law  is  just,  or 
a  temperance  law  right,  or  a  criminal  law  best?  I  believe  thac 
is  a  matter  that  affects  both  sides  intimately  and  directly. 

In  the  early  days  it  was  not  considered  improper  for  the 
wife  to  join  her  husband  in  repelling  the  attack  of  the  savages 
upon  the  home,  and  it  was  a  common  experience  in  frontier 
life  for  the  women  to  engage  with  the  men  in  all  the  conflicts 
to  protect  the  home  from  the  outside  enemy,  and  therefore, 
Gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  right  and  just  to 
give  the  wife  the  ballot,  to  aid  her  and  as  an  extra  weapon  for 
her  to  protect  the  home   from  the  outside  enemy. 

M7\  MitcheU  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  am  opposed  to  striking  from  the  Twenty-seventh 
Article  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  the  word,  "male." 
My  opposition  to  this  resolution  is  because  it  proposes  the  im- 
position of  an  additional  burden  upon  woman, — a  privilege  she 
does  not  need,  an  obligation  she  does  not  seek,  and  upon  her 
should  not  be  involuntarily  imposed  this  burden.  I  maintain 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  women  of  this  state  are  opposed 
to  equal,  or  woman,  suffrage.  I  challenge  the  successful  con- 
tradiction of  that  proposition.  If  any  gentleman  who  favors 
this  proposition  desires  to  test  it,  let  him  propose  to  submit, 
as  ought  to  be  done,  this  proposition  to  the  women  of  the  state. 
When  they,  a  majority  of  the  women  of  the  state,  express  a 
desire  for  this  privilege,  a  readiness  to  assume  its  duties  an.l 
burdens,  and  vote  in  the  affirmative  upon  the  proposition,  it 
will  be  time  enough  for  man  to  grant  w^oman  This  privilege. 


416    JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

I  do  not  question  the  efficiency,  the  ability,  virtue,  or  the 
integrity  of  the  women  of  New  Hampshire.  They  are  capable 
of  properly  performing  any  duty  they  voluntarily  and  intelli- 
j-ently  assume.  They  are  the  peers  of  the  women  of  any  com- 
monwealth or  society  of  this  or  any  other  country.  They  are 
amply  qualified  and  superbly  equipped  by  capacity  and  edu- 
xjation  to  deal  with  any  proposition  that  should  be  assumed  by 
or  imposed  upon  them.  They  have  always  shown  their  capacity, 
up  to  their  limitations,  to  effectively  discharge  their  duty  anvl 
intelligently  deal  with  every  proposition  the  burdens  of  which 
nature  designed  that  they  should  assume.  Harriet  P.  Dame, 
to  whose  good  work  attention  has  been  directed,  and  the  other 
distinguished  women  whose  sacrifices  and  virtues  were  so  justly 
commended  did  not  have,  or  need,  the  ballot  to  accomplish  their 
noble  and  patriotic  work.  Woman,  up  to  the  present  time,  has, 
without  the  burden  of  the  ballot,  accomplished  her  great  work 
for  civilization  and  humanity. 

We  are  told  that  this  proposition  should  be  submitted  to  the 
people.  They  say  that  members  of  thlB  Convention  have  been 
committed  in  favor  of  it.  To  me  that  is  incredible.  We  stand 
here  commissioned,  having  imposed  upon  us  an  obligation  to 
deal  with  this  proposition  fairly,  as  it  appears  to  us  now  and 
here,  after  listening  to  the  evidence  and  the  arguments;  anrl 
it  would  be  as  improper  and  as  impudent  to  commit,  or  attempt 
to  commit,  a  member  of  this  Convention  in  advance  as  to  com- 
mit, or  attempt  to  commit,  a  juror  before  he  heard  the  evidence, 
the  arguments  of  counsel,  and  the  charge  of  the  Court. 

They  say  that  we  should  submit  this  proposition  to  the 
people.  They  say  "we  are  opposed  to  it,"  but  submit  it.  Gen- 
tlemen, such  cowardice  is  unworthy  of  the  proposition  here 
under  consideration;  it  is  unworthy  of  the  members  of  this 
Convention,  as  well  as  being  unworthy  of  either  the  women 
who  favor  or  oppose  it. 

This  proposition,  too,  vitally  affects  the  people  of  the  state, 
and  should  be  dealt  with  in  accordance  with  our  intelligence 
and  our  conscientious  convictions  'at  the  present  time.  Our 
duty,  as  members  of  this  Convention,  imperatively  demands  that 
we  should  not  shirk  our  obligations  with  reference  to  this  or 
uny  other  question  submitted  to  us.  Let  us,  here  and  now,  do 
our  duty,  deal  with  this  proposition  as  men,  and  thereby  be 
entitled  to  the  respect  of  ourselves,  our  fellowmen,  and  the 
:good  women  whose  rights  and  interests  are  here  involved. 

They  tell  us  that  other  states  have  adopted  it,  Colorado  and 
■five  other  WcKtern  states.  The  question  is  not  what  the  people 
of  other  states  have  done,  but  what  should  we  do. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  417 

It  will  be  recalled  that,  but  a  comparatively  short  time  ago, 
many  or  several  of  those  states  adopted  free  silver.  New  Hamp- 
shire, in  that  crisis,  stood  firm  for  sound  currency.  Today  it  is 
universally  recognized  that  we  were  right.  The  people  of 
Utah,  one  of  the  states  cited  as  favorable  to  this  proposi- 
tion, and  is  now  practising  woman's  suffrage,  tolerates  polyg- 
amy or  Mormonism,  while  the  people  of  New  Hampshire 
adhere  tenaciously  to  the  Christian  marriage.  It  cannot  be 
seriously  suggested  that  we  should  adopt  this  innovation  simply 
because  the  people  of  some  of  those  other  states  have  deemed 
it  wise  to  adopt  it.  The  advocates  of  this  proposition  have  sum- 
moned from  Washington  a  distinguished  gentleman,  Mr.  Taylor, 
to  testify  in  relation  to  the  practical  operation  of  woman's 
suffrage  in  Colorado.  In  answer  to  this,  I  will  summon  Judge 
Hallett,  a  judge  of  the  United  States  Court  in  Colorado,  who 
says:  "It  has  produced  no  special  reforms,  and  it  has  had  no 
particular  purifying  effect  upon  politics.  There  is  a  growing 
tendency  on  the  part  of  most  of  the  better  and  more  intelli- 
gent female  voters  of  Colorado  to  cease  exercising  the  ballot. 
If  it  were  to  be  done  over  again,  the  people  of  Colorado  would 
defeat  woman's  suffrage  by  an  overwhelming  vote." 

This  is  the  testimony  from  Colorado  that  I  am  willing  to 
consider  this  proposition  upon. 

Another  witness  that  I  am  prepared  to  summon  is  Daniel  Web- 
ster, a  son  of  New  Hampshire,  a  statesman  whose  portrait 
adorns  this  hall.  This  great  son  of  New  Hampshire,  upon  this 
subject,  said:  "The  rough  contests  of  the  political  world  are 
not  suited  to  the  dignity  and  delicacy  of  women.*  It  is  by  the 
promulgation  of  sound  morals  in  the  community,  and  more 
especially  in  the  training  and  instruction  of  the  young,  that 
woman  performs  her  part  toward  the  preservation  of  free 
government." 

Another  question  which  I  respectfully  submit  to  this  Con- 
vention, using  the  language  of  another:  Why  should  the  great 
majority  of  women,  who,  as  everybody  knows,  are  either  in- 
different or  opposed  to  woman's  suffrage,  be  forced  to  accept 
it  against  their  will,  when  there  is  no  sound  evidence  that  any 
miaterial  good  is  likely  to  accrue,  either  to  themselves  or  to 
the  state? 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  woman  now  has  all  the  rights 
she  needs  in  New  Hampshire.  Suffrage  is  not  a  necessity;  nor 
would  it  be  an  advantage  to  her.  Suffrage  is  a  privilege 
Tsurdened  with  important  obligations  and  great  responsibilities. 
Woman  stands  preeminent  in  her  sphere.     She  stands  enthroned 


418    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

as  the  queen  of  the  greatest  republic  on  earth, — the  home,  the 
household.  There  she  sits  enthroned  in  the  affection  of  her 
family,  the  respect  of  the  community, — the  queen  of  the  house- 
hold, the  saintly  mother,  the  devoted  wife,  and  the  affectionate 
daughter.  Woman  has  achieved  great  results  for  modern, 
Christian  civilization.  Do  not  embarass  her,  or  impair  her  great 
usefulness. 

It  was  woman  who,  at  the  dawn  of  Christianity,  warned  the 
Governor,  who  yielded  to  the  demand  of  the  multitude  who 
called  for  the  innocent  blood  of  the  Saviour,  to  desist;  but  the 
Governor  could  not  or  did  not  resist  the  demand  of  the  multi- 
tude who  insisted  upon  the  sacrifice.  She  it  was  who  followed 
Him  to  crucifixion.  She  was  found  at  the  sepulchre,  faithful 
and  devoted,  and  during  the  progress  of  Christian  civilization, 
down  "through  the  corridors  of  time,"  she  has  been  found  the 
unselfish  promoter,  great  handmaid,  and  eloquent  advocate  of 
our  modern  civilization,  the  great  cornerstone  of  our  republic. 
Do  not.  Gentlemen,  remove  her  from  this  splendid  field  of  use- 
fulness and  activity.  Leave  her  untrammeled  in  her  great 
work;  permit  her  to  continue,  unpolluted  by  the  mire  of  active, 
practical  politics.  Leave  her  unembarrassed  to  do  her  great 
work  in  the  future  as  she  has  done  it  in  the  past,  and  thus 
we  will  all  realize  and  cheerfully  acknowledge,  as  we  now  do, 
that  "the  hand  that  rocks  the  cradle  is  the  hand  that  rules 
the  world." 

Mr.  Lyfoi'd  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  accept 
the  challenge  of  my  colleague  from  Ward  4  to  settle  this  ques- 
tion here  and  now,  and  I  am  voting  for  this  proposition,  as  T 
have  voted  for  other  propositions  in  this  Convention,  because 
I  believe  in  it,  and  not  because  I  desire  to  shirk  any  responsi- 
bility. The  gentleman  from  Concord  says  that  women  are 
competent  to  deal  with  any  proposition  that  may  be  put  be- 
fore them.  I  agree  with  him  in  that  statement,  and  upon  that 
single  point  I  desire  to  address  this  Convention. 

I  yield  to  no  man  in  this  Convention  in  my  desire  for  purer 
politics,  state  and  national.  I  differ  with  some  of  them  as  to 
the  best  method  of  reaching  this  result.  I  do  not  believe  that 
you  can  legislate  men  purer;  I  do  not  believe  that  you  can 
accomplish  great  results  solely  by  legislation,  or  by  constitu- 
tional amendments.  The  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  its 
fountain.  The  source  of  power  in  this  country  is  the  people. 
The  people  are  the  sovereigns,  and  your  legislatures  will  be 
what  the  people  make  of  them.  The  great  crying  trouble 
today,  in  this  country,  is  the  indifference  of  the  people. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  419 

Now,  then,  that  must  be  reached, — it  may  be  a  longer  process 
than  by  mere  legislative  acts, — but  it  must  be  reached  by  the 
education  of  the  youth  of  the  land  to  their  civic  duties,  as 
you  educate  them  to  their  moral  duties  in  the  home;  and  how 
are  these  civic  duties  to  be  imparted  to  the  youth  of  the  land 
except  at  the  fireside  and  in  the  schoolrooms  of  the  coun- 
try? At  the  fireside  it  is  the  mother  who  instills  into  the 
youth  his  moral  duties.  It  is  in  the  schoolroom  that  the 
instruction  of  the  youth  comes  principally  from  the  women  of 
the  land.  If  you  will  strike  from  your  public  schools  some 
of  the  fads  that  now  prevail  in  them,  and  substitute  therefor 
an  education  of  the  youth  in  their  civic  duties,  so  that  the  boy 
or  the  girl,  when  he  becomes  of  age,  will  feel  that  same  Inter- 
est and  that  same  desire  to  perform  a  civic  duty  that  he  does 
to  perform  a  moral  duty,  you  will  have  accomplished  more 
for  this  country  than  by  statutes  or  constitutional  amendments. 

If  you  enfranchise  women,  you  give  to  them  an  incentive  to 
educate  the  youth  of  the  land,  both  in  the  home  and  in  the 
schools,  in  their  civic  duties.  Clothing  them  with  suffrage,  you 
put  the  responsibility  upon  them,  and  you  put  them  where  my 
colleague  fom  Concord  says  they  are  competent  to  meet  an 
issue;  you  give  to  them  the  responsibility  of  meeting  that  issue, 
and  they  will  know  the  reason  why. 

I  yield  to  no  person  in  the  tribute  that  I  would  pay  to 
women,  but  because  they  have  done  splendidly  in  the  home, 
because  we  owe  so  much  to  them,  does  it  mean  that  their 
work  stops  now  while  the  work  of  man  goes  on?  No.  En- 
franchise women,  so  that  they  will  have  an  equal  interest  with 
us  in  the  prosperity  of  our  state,  our  nation,  and  our  munici- 
palities, and  you  not  only  have  effective  helpmeets  in  them, 
but  you  have  an  educational  force  that,  in  the  succeeding  gen- 
erations, will  give  you  a  class  of  voters  who  will  no  longer  be 
indifferent  to  the  privileges  accorded  them,  and  you  will  ac- 
complish more  than  you  would  accomplish  by  mere  legislation. 

Mr.  Howard  F.  Hill  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentleman 
of  the  Convention,  .this  Convention  was  called  for  two  purposes: 
First,  the  adjustment  of  representation;  second,  the  matter  of 
taxation.  A  third  theme  of  grave  importance  has  arisen,  that 
is,  the  initiative  and  referendum.  These  things,  in  the  main, 
have  been  disposed  of.  The  time  has  now  come,  after  a  short 
period  of  aerated  wind  upon  this  subject,  to  take  a  vote,  to  clear 
the  decks,  to  heave  this  resolution  over  among  the  rubbish,  to 
adjourn,  and  go  home;  a  consummation  most  devoutly  to  ^e 
desired. 


420    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

I  live  in  an  old  house  at  the  South  End.  I  sit  in  one  of  the 
back  seats.  I  do  not  represent  a  small  town,  but  I  represent  a 
small  ward.  That  house  I  spoke  of  is  situated  upon  one  of  the 
side  hills,  which  slopes  gpently  toward  the  river.  Sometimes, 
in  the  spring  season,  there  is  a  little  seepage  which  enters 
the  coal  bins  and  the  lower  story  of  the  barn.  That  can  be 
endured.  In  front  runs  an  electric  railroad,  which  bears  on 
its  cars  the  legend  of  that  iniquitous  and  mischievous  corpora- 
tion, the  Boston  &  Maine.  Every  seven  and  a  half  minutes  in 
a  summer  day  one  of  those  cars  thunders  through  my  parlor. 
In  the  nights  there  is  a  convulsion,  so  that  it  seems  as  though 
the  earth  were  shaking,  in  every  bedroom.  Still,  that  railroad 
is  of  some  convenience. 

Behind  the  house  there  are  about  twenty  railroad  tracks 
and  anywhere  from  two  to  eighteen  locomotives  getting  up 
steam.  When  the  first  tint  of  golden-fingered  dawn  appears 
above  the  horizon,  there  is  one  of  those  clam-shell  coal  grabs 
diffusing  gentle  benedictions,  which  involves  the  season  of  puri- 
fication, which  every  man  regards  with  horror,  spring  cleaning. 
Our  household  is  well  sooted.  Nevertheless,  what  shall  I  do? 
Here  is  a  house,  which,  like  Daniel  Webster's  "venerable  men," 
came  down  to  us  from  former  generations.  What  am  I  ffoing  to 
do?  Buy  a  new  lot,  tear  down  the  old  house,  put  up  a  new 
one?  No.  I  guess  I'll  stand  it  during  the  remaining  period  of 
my  sojourn. 

Again,  a  second  course  is  open.  Shall  I  go  to  work  and  re- 
construct that  house?  Shall  I  build  a  sleeping  porch  for  it, 
put  an  elevator  in,  plate  glass  windows,  bathroom  conveni- 
ences with  every  bedroom,  new  means  of  heating,  a  cupola, 
and  a  mortgage?  Not  much.  I  guess  that  old  house  will  stand 
it  a  little  longer.  Think  of  this  house  as  a  sort  of  pro  tern, 
parable.  I  am  depicting  the  Constitution.  It  has  served  us 
many  years.  It  has  done  good  work,  after  its  way.  What  shall 
we  do  with  the  Constitution?  Shall  we  dump  it,  throw  it  on 
the  scrap  heap?  We  most  certainly  shall,  if  we  inject  a  new 
class  of  seventy  or  eighty  thousand  raw  voters  who  have  not 
given  any  attention  in  this  direction. 

There  is  still  one  other  course  that  is  open  to  us.  Stay  by 
the  old  house.  There  are  not  many  years  to  stay.  The  old 
house  is  something  sacred.  There  children  have  been  born  in 
love  and  honor  and  sanctification.  They  have  gone  forth  to 
receive  the  dews  of  baptism  on  their  brows,  and  the  sign  of 
the  cross.  They  have  been  carried  away,  too,  in  little  white 
boxes,  plants  in  the  garden  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  the  land 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  421 

which  we  confidently  look  for.  There  have  been  fair  brides  go 
from  that  house,  with  orange  blossoms.  They  have  lived  their 
day.  Perhaps  they  have  passed  on  in  mellow  youth;  perhaps 
survived  to  be  elderly  women.  That  house  is  sacred.  There 
have  been  the  old  ones  who  have  given  us  nurture  and  educa- 
tion. They,  too,  have  gone  to  their  long  home  to  await  the 
resurrection  summons  and  the  coming  of  the  Master.  That 
house  is  sacred.  I  guess  we'll  keep  it.  If  the  roof  leaks,  we 
will  send  for  the  appropriate  artisan.  If  the  soil  pipes  give 
us  trouble,  we  will  have  them  fixed.  But  we  will  stay  by  the 
old  house  because  its  memories  are  consecrated. 

So  it  is  with  this  Constitution.  I  say  we  do  not  want  a  new 
Constitution.  Nobody  proposes  it,  that  is,  in  form;  they  may 
in  substance.  We  do  not  want  to  go  to  work  and  devitalize  it 
and  reconstruct  it  by  injecting  a  new  list  of  uhinstructed  voters; 
by  extemporizing  a  new  constituency  among  this  people.  We 
will  simply  go  along  and  live  in  the  same  old  way.  But  we 
will  have  this  Constitution  fixed,  just  as  we  would  that  house. 
If  there  is  a  joint  that  squeaks,  we  will  have  it  oiled.  If  there 
is  a  hole  that  leaks,  we  will  have  it  plugged.  We  will  have  it 
adapted  to  modern  situations.  But  when  you  come  to  inter- 
ject a  constituency  of  eighty  thousand  women,  I  submit  that 
you  are  turning  our  Constitution  upside  down,  wrong  side  to 
and  inside  out,  and  giving  us  what  will  be  in  effect  a  new  Con- 
stitution. 

Vote  No! 

Mr.  Yowng  of  Gharlestown. — ^Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  when  I  came  to  this  Convention,  so  far  as  woman's 
suffrage  was  concerned,  I  came  in  a  receptive  mood.  I  had 
come  to  recognize  that  this  question  was  one  at  which  we 
could  no  longer  laugh.  I  had  come  to  recognize  that  somebody 
was  clamoring  for  something  to  which  we  had  got  to  pay  atten- 
tion. 

At  a  meeting  at  which  there  was  a  gathering  of  both  men 
and  women,  but  a  few  weeks  ago,  a  straw  vote  was  taken 
among  a  very  conservative  body  of  women,  and  the  vote  was 
two  to  one  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage,  not  in  the  sense  of 
having  woman's  suffrage  thrust  upon  them,  but  to  be  given 
the  right  to  vote,  the  same  as  men  do.  Before  I  came  here  there 
were  various  arguments,  pro  and  con,  which  made  a  great  deal 
of  impression  upon  me  as  I  read  them  in  the  newspapers  anl 
magazines.  That  is  why  I  came  here  in  a  receptive  mood,  and 
I  think,  as  members  of  this  Convention,  if  upon  all  questions 
we   came   here  in   a  receptive   mood,  we   might  get  along  and 


422     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

do  better  work.  I  came  in  a  receptive  mood,  but  if  I  had  come 
here  in  a  receptive  mood  and  had  not  been  a  member  of  the 
Special  Committee  which  gave  open  hearings  to  both  sides,  and 
had  come  here  this  morning  still  in  a  receptive  mood,  and  had 
heard  the  speech  which  I  heard  a  few  minutes  ago  from  one 
of  the  most  distinguished  legal  lights  in  New  Hampshire,  I 
should  have  been  converted  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage. 

He  speaks, — and  that  is  one  of  the  worst  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  antis, — he  speaks  of  this  great  burden  being  thrust 
upon  them.  Is  it  a  burden  to  us  men  to  go  to  the  polls  and 
cast  our  vote?  Do  we  spend  days  and  nights  in  agony,  won- 
dering how  we  shall  decide  these  important  questions?  I  don't 
know  of  any  one  of  my  sex  who  does.  Why  should  we  expect 
it  is  going  to  be  so  much  more  of  a  burden  for  the  women  than 
it  is  for  the  men?  Thrust  upon  them!  We  simply  give  them, 
if  we  do  give  them  this  right,  we  simply  give  them  an  equal 
right  with  ourselves. 

He  speaks,  too,  of  the  women  of  Oregon,  who  have  gone  so 
far  in  this  matter,  and,  now  that  the  burden  is  thrust  upon 
them,  are  beginning  to  regret  the  steps  which  they  have 
taken.  The  question  of  woman's  suffrage  in  the  state  of  Ore- 
gon has  not  been  fully  adopted.  He  speaks  of  Congressman 
Taylor  from  the  state  of  Oregon.  Congressman  Taylor  is  a 
very  distinguished  representative  in  Congress  from  the  state  of 
Colorado.  Gentlemen,  if  this  distinguished  legal  light  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  were  to  try  a  case  before  your  Courts:, 
and  witnesses  came  before  him  with  no  more  knowledge  than 
the  views  which  he  presents  to  you  today,  I  wonder  how  much 
of  a  jury  he  could  convince  upon  such  arguments? 

I  heard,  as  a  member  of  this  Special  Committee,  with  these 
seats  nearly  full  of,  I  should  think,  the  best  type  of  women  in 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  perhaps  a  few  outside, — I 
heard  this  matter  debated  very  eloquently,  and  I  have  read 
from  the  literature  which  has  come  to  us  broadcast  that  the 
exponents  of  woman's  suffrage  are  a  band  of  spinsters,  who 
are  smashing  and  breaking  windows.  There  was  nothing  of 
that  sort.  The  women  exponents  of  this  question  were  all  in- 
troduced as  "Mrs.,"  with  only  two  exceptions,  and  the  one  spin- 
ster introduced  was  introduced  from  the  antis,  'and  I  venture  to 
say,  from  the  appearance  and  the  place  which  she  occupied 
among  the  speakers,  that  she  was  the  king-pin  of  those  who 
gave  their  addresses  that  night,  and,  judging  from  the  type  and 
style  of  the  woman,  if  she  were  given  the  right  to  vote,  I  bet 
she  would  vote. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  423 

Returning  to  my  home  next  day,  one  of  the  chief  speakers, 
apparently  a  strong-minded  and  strong-willed  woman,  in  con- 
versation with  me,  told  me  that  if  she  had  the  right  to  vote  she 
would  vote.  Among  all  that  class  of  women  who  were  so  prone 
to  argue  they  didn't  want  this  matter  thrust  upon  them  were 
women  who  had  husbands,  they  admitted,  with  this  one  ex- 
ception, who  were  able  to  look  after  the  voting  affairs  for 
themselves.  To  have  this  matter,  this  burden,  thrust  upon 
them!  How  much  longer  do  you  suppose  it  would  take  .1 
woman  to  go  to  the  polls  and  cast  her  ballot  than  it  would 
to  go  into  a  department  store  and  match  a  piece  of  silk? 

Now,  "again,  Congressman  Taylor  from  Colorado:  After  hear- 
ing speeches  from  both  sides  of  the  women  I  was  myself  im- 
pressed by  hearing  a  man  from  a  woman's  suffrage  state. 
When  I  came  here,  the  strongest  argument  against  woman's 
suffrage  was  that  there  is  only  a  small  percentage  who  wish 
to  vote,  and  the  distinguished  legal  light  from  Concord  said 
this  morning  that  the  majority  of  women  do  not  want  to  vote. 
Why  not  cast  a  straw  vote  and  ask  them?  Congressman  Tay- 
lor told  us  before  this  was  adopted  in  Colorado  not  over 
twenty-five  percent  of  the  women  there  wanted  to  vote,  but, 
as  a  mark  of  chivalry  and  as  a  mark  of  justice,  they  gave  them 
the  right,  and  Mrs.  Wood  of  Portsmouth,  to  show  the  Commit- 
tee and  the  audience  that  night  what  a  man  and  woman  were 
like  from  a  woman's  suffrage  state,  introduced  Congressman 
Taylor  and  his  wife,  and,  if  my  judgment  is  good  for  anything, 
they  were  as  distinguished  and  domestic  and  lady-like  and  gen- 
tlemanly-like couple  as  could  come  from  our  own  Granite  state. 
I  couldn't  see  any  difference  in  them.  He  said  they  had  com**, 
to  think  of  woman's  suffrage  as  a  matter  of  course,  and,  until 
within  one  year,  he  had  taken  no  particular  interest  in  the 
matter  for  or  against,  but  had  come  to  accept  it. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  women  will  vote  the  same  as  their 
husbands  do.  Perhaps  ninety  percent  will,  but  there  will  be  an- 
other element  who  will  think  for  themselves,  and  they  may 
hold  the  balance  of  power,  and  when  it  comes  to  the  election 
of  proper  officials,  if  there  is  someone  on  either  ticket  that  is 
not  considered  a  fair  and  just  and  capable  man,  the  women 
will  scratch  that  ticket  and  will  vote  the  right  way. 

References  have  been  made  here  to  the  medical  profession. 
Gentlemen,  if  a  doctor  was  to  be  called  into  your  family  today 
and  he  prescribed  burned  goats'  horns,  as  they  did  in  ancient 
times,  what  would  you  think  of  that?  Is  that  mo-dern  medical 
science?    If  women  were  allowed  to  do  the  same  as  they  did 


424     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

in  Revolutionary  times,  just  handle  the  musket  theit  husbands 
gave  them,  which  was  the  best  they  could  do  for  them  then,  the 
best  we  can  do  for  them  now  is  to  give  them  the  ballot. 

The  distinguished  gentleman  from  Concord  says  that  the 
woman's  home  is  her  throne,  and  that  she  keeps  her  proper 
sphere  there,  and  says  to  let  her  go  so  far  and  no  farther. 
Gentlemen,  I  submit  to  you,  isn't  that  the  position  of  a  woman 
who  told  her  daughter  in  the  nursery  rhyme,  when  she  asked 
if  she  couldn't  go  in  bathing? 

"  'Oh,  mother,  m^ay  I  go  out  to  swim?' 

'Yes,  my  dearest  daughter, 
But  hang  your  clothes  on  a  hickory  limb. 
And  don't  go  near  the  water.'  " 

Mr.  Barney  of  Canaan. — This  discussion  has  cost  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  $8  a  minute.  I  am  not  going  to  cost  the  state 
over  $24  in  what  I  say.  When  my  Brother  Whitcher  from 
Haverhill  got  up,  I  expected  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of 
woman's  suffrage,  but  all  he  did  was  to  name  twenty  gentle- 
men who  are  in  favor  of  it.  I  noticed  the  name  of  D.  C. 
Remich.  I  think  that  is  the  first  time  that  the  gentleman  from 
Haverhill  ever  endorsed  Mr.  Remich  as  a  man  in  whom  he  put 
much  confidence. 

I  have  one  or  two  things  I  want  to  say  to  you  here.  You 
heard  those  who  were  here  last  Thursday  night.  You  heard  a 
lot  of  women,  and  able  women  they  were,  too,  who  came  in 
here  and  asked  of  you  not  to  force  this  issue  upon  them.  Gen- 
tlemen, some  of  you  say  the  women  are  not  obliged  to  vote 
unless  they  want  to.  That  is  not  so.  You  give  women  the  right 
of  suffrage,  you  give  them  the  right  to  vote,  and  when  you  get 
a  warm  contest,  either  in  the  primary  or  in  the  election,  and 
your  neighbor  Jones  is  going  to  take  his  wife  and  daughter  to 
the  polls;  you  are  going  to  take  your  wife  and  daughter,  if 
you  have  to  drag  them  there  by  the  hair  of  the  head.  We 
know  what  the  caucuses  and  elections  are,  the  smoke  and  the 
talk,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  Now,  when  you  inject  a  lot  of 
women  into  it,  is  the  tendency  going  to  be  upward,  are  you 
going  to  pull  the  men  up  to  the  standard  of  the  women,  or 
are  you  going  to  pull  some  of  the  women  down?  You  all  know 
Dr.  Lyman  Abbott.  In  an  article  he  said:  "Twenty  years  ago 
I  wrote  an  article  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage.  I  sent  it  to 
a  magazine  and  it  was  rejected,  and  I  have  been  thankful  ever 
since  that  it  was."  Four  or  five  years  ago.  President  Roose- 
velt, in  speaking  of  woman's  suffrage,  said,  "P  can  see  that  the 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  42^ 

condition  of  women  in  the  states  that  have  adopted  woman's 
suffrage  is  no  better  than  it  is  in  the  states  that  have  not 
adoped  it."  That  was  his  opinion  then,  but  President  Roose- 
velt is  a  man  who  sometimes  changes  his  mind. 

An  eminent  authority  on  this  subject  has  laid  down  three 
propositions  in  regard  to  the  votes  of  women.  "Who  are  going 
to  influence  the  votes  of  women?"  He  says  first:  "In  the  large 
cities  the  vicious  women  are  going  to  be  influenced  by  the 
police."  He  says,  "The  evangelical  societies  that  want  to  carry 
through  any  particular  measure  are  going  to  influence  the 
votes  of  women."  And  he  says  thirdly  and  lastly,  "The  hus- 
bands are  going  to  influence  the  votes  of  women."  Now,  Gen- 
tlemen, a  great  many  of  you  have  said,  "Oh,  I  don't  believe  In 
woman's  suffrage,  but  I  believe  in  submitting  it  to  the  people." 
Gentlemen,  why  don't  you  vote  as  you  pray?  Why  don't  yoa 
be  honest?  If  you  believe  in  a  thing,  why  don't  you  get  up  and 
act  it,  and  not  sneak  behind  the  bush  and  get  out  of  these 
things  by  submitting  them  to  the  people?  I  don't  believe  that 
it  is  wise  at  the  present  time  to  have  the  women  given  the 
right  to  the  ballot.  I  'don't  believe  the  majority  want  it. 
When  the  question  was  submitted  in  Massachusetts  a  few  years 
ago  only  flve  percent  of  the  women  in  that  state  voted  on  the 
question.  Gentlemen,  we  have  got  along  for  a  great  many 
years  under  this  old  Constitution.  I  don't  know  that  th'3 
women  have  come  to  the  legislature  of  this  state  and  asked  for 
anything  they  have  not  got.  If  they  are  well  enough  off  now, 
let  us  let  well  enough  alone. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Lmid/aff. — Mr.  President,  I  am  in  favor  of  strik- 
ing the  word  "male"  from  the  Constitution  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  I  shall  vote  to  strike  it  out  at  the  polls  if  it 
is  put  up  to  the  people.  I  have  voted  in  the  legislature  in  favor 
of  giving  women  municipal  suffrage.  I  am  in  favor  of  it  for 
two  reasons,  practical  reasons,  and  reasons  of  principle.  The 
industrial  conditions  of  today,  the  great  changes  that  have 
taken  place  since  the  Constitutions  were  founded,  justify  this 
arnendment  to-day.  Today  the  government  interferes  with, 
regulates  and  controls  innumerable  things  that  it  did  not  one 
hundred  years  ago.  We  regulate"  the  hours  and  the  conditions 
of  labor.  Today  in  this  state  there  are  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  women  wage-earners  and  factory  hands.  We  regulate  the 
public  health,  and  women  are  interested  in  and  competent  to 
deal  with  such  questions.  We  regulate  today  the  education  oE 
children,  and  every  man  knows  that,  as  a  general  thing,  women, 
mothers,  take  more  interest  in  the  education  of  their  children 


426    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

than  fathers  do.  We  regulate  the  sale  and  the  purity  of  food 
products,  and  we  know  that  women  are  competent  and  able  to 
deal  with  that  subject.  So  I  believe  granting  suffrage  to  women 
will  bring  about  better  conditions,  especially  in  the  things  that 
they  are  interested  in  and  know  about.  I  am  in  favor  of  strik- 
ing out  that  word  for  another  reason,  a  reason  that  must  ap- 
peal to  every  man  who  has  any  democratic  feeling.  I  am  in 
favor  of  it  because  the  word  "male"  in  our  Constitution  is  in 
violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  government,  as 
set  forth  in  the  Bill  of  Eights.  If  the  gentlemen  who  told  us 
the  right  to  vote  is  a  privilege  really  believe  it,  why  don't  they 
submit  an  amendment  to  the  first  three  articles  there?  "All 
men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent."  Is  there  a  man 
so  narrow  that  he  thinks  the  word  "men"  refers  to  sex?  Bead 
the  next  sentence,  "Therefore  all  government  of  right  originates 
from  the  people,  is  founded  in  consent,  and  instituted  for  the 
general  good."  And  are  not  women  part  of  the  people  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire?  Are  not  our  mothers  and  sisters  as 
much  a  part  of  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  as 
we?  "All  men  have  certain  natural-,  essential,  and  inherent 
rights,  'among  which  are  the  enjoying  and  defending  life,  lib- 
erty, acquiring,  possessing  and  protecting  property,  and,  in  a 
word,  of  seeking  and  obtaining  happiness."  Does  the  word 
"men"  refer  to  sex  merely?  The  whole  principle  and  theory  of 
our  Bill  of  Eights  is  that  every  member  of  the  community,  every 
mature  person,  is  entitled  to  his  say  in  the  government,  which 
regulates  him  in  the  pursuit  of  happiness  and  the  protection 
of  his  life  and  liberty.  I  have  absolutely  no  sympathy  what- 
ever with  those  who  tell  us  the  right  to  vote  is  a  privilege. 
The  argument  that  a  great  many  women  do  not  want  it  has  no 
weight.  The  fact  that  some  people  do  not  want  to  exercise 
their  fundamental  rights  is  no  reason  why  you  should  deny  it 
to  people  who  do  want  to  exercise  it.  No  man  need  vote  unless 
he  wants  to,  no  woman  need  vote  unless  she  wants  to,  but  it 
is  a  right  that  every  person  should  have  under  the  principles  of 
our  government.  If  the  gentleman  from  Concord  was  surprised 
at  the  weakness  of  the  argument  in  favor  of  it,  I  am  more 
surprised  at  some  of  the  arguments  that  were  put  up  against 
it,  and  by  able  men,  too.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Concord 
want  this  Convention  to  understand  that  Utah  is  in  favor  of 
polygamy  because  women  vote  there?  Doesn't  he  know  that 
polygamy  has  existed  in  the  world  on  account  of  the  passion 
and  selfishness  of  men?  Does  anybody  believe  that  the  West- 
ern states  went  for  free  silver  because  the  women  voted? 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  427 

The  whole  history  of  suffrage  has  been  one  of  a  gradual  ex- 
tension and  no  extension  once  given  has  ever  been  withdrawn. 
It  ought  and  will  finally  be  given  to  every  citizen,  regardless  of 
sex. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  this 
Convention,  ten  years  ago  I  voted  for  the  amendment  in  favor 
of  woman's  suffrage,  and  until  recently  I  have  been  in  favor  of 
submitting  this  proposition  to  the  people  of  this  state.  But 
there  is  only  one  class  of  men  who  do  not  change  their  opin- 
ions, and  I  trust  I  do  not  belong  to  that  class.  I  have  changed 
my  opinion.  I  have  changed  my  opinion  because  during  the 
last  two  months  there  has  been  great  agitation  in  this  state 
on  this  question,  and  I  have  come  to  the  firm  conclusion  that 
a  great  majority  of  the  women  of  this  state  do  not  require, 
or  ask,  for  the  privilege  of  voting.  Now,  I  will  state  my  po- 
sition clearly.  If  I  was  convinced  that  a  majority  of  the  women 
of  New  Hampshire  demanded  of  the  men  of  New  Hampshire  a 
right  to  vote,  I  should  be  the  first  man  to  champion  their 
cause,  but  when  I  believe  that  only  a  small  fractional  part  of 
the  women  of  New  Hampshire  demand  this  vote,  then  I  am 
against  it,  and  against  it  until  the  women  ask  for  Tt  them- 
selves. Now,  that  is  my  position.  There  is  a  good  deal  of 
sentiment  in  this  subject,  and  this  sentiment  controls  a  great 
many  women  and  men.  There  is  no  sentiment  in  the  way  I 
look  at  it.  It  is  whether  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  will  be 
benefited  by  giving  women  a  right  to  vote  and  whether  the 
women  of  New  Hampshire  will  be  benefited  by  it.  If  they 
would,  then  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  and  until  that  appears  I  am 
opposed  to  it.  Now,  Gentlemen,  New  Hampshire  has  been  the 
first  state,  and  the  foremost  state,  to  give  women  their  exact 
rights  before  the  law;  they  stand  equally  today  before  the 
law  with  every  man  in  the  state.  Their  property  is  protected 
like  the  property  of  men.  Their  rights  are  protected,  they  have 
an  equal  control  and  guardianship  over  their  children,  which 
is  different  from  many  states.  If  there  is  anything  the  women 
need  to  protect  them  more  than  the  protection  of  a  good  hus- 
band, then  I  am  in  favor  of  the  women. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  there  has  been  a  good  deal  said  about  Colo- 
rado, and  I  am  going  to  read  you  a  very  short  article,  which 
was  written  by  Mrs.  Francis  W.  Goddard,  president  of  the  So- 
ciety of  Colonial  Dames  of  Colorado  in  December,  1910.  I  as- 
sume that  Mrs.  Goddard  is  a  respectable  woman,  an  able 
woman,  or  else  she  would  not  be  at  the  head  of  the  Colonial 
Dames  of  that  state.     She  says  this: 


428     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

"I  have  voted  since  1893.  I  have  been  a  delegate  to.  the  city 
and  state  Conventions,  and  a  member  of  the  Republican  State- 
Committee  from  my  county.  I  have  been  a  deputy  sheriff  and 
a  watcher  at  the  polls.  For  twenty-three  years  I  have  been  in 
the  midst  of  the  woman's  suffrage  movement  in  Colorado.  For 
years  I  believed  in  woman's  suffrage,  and  have  worked  day  in 
and  day  out  for  it.  I  now  see  my  mistake  and  would  abolish 
it  tomorrow  if  I  could. 

"No-  law  has  been  put  on  the  statute  book  of  Colorado  for  the 
benefit  of  women  and  children  that  has  been  put  there  by  the 
women.  The  child  labor  law  went  through  independently  of 
the  woman's  vote.  The  hours  of  working  women  have  not  been 
shortened;  the  wages  of  school  teachers  have  not  been  raised; 
the  type  of  men  that  got  into  office  has  not  improved  a  bit. 

"Frankly,  the  experiment  is  a  failure.  It  has  done  Colorado 
no  good.  It  has  done  woman  no  good.  The  best  thing  for  both 
would  be  if  tomorrow  the  ballot  for  women  could  be  abolished. 
"(Signed)  MRS.  FRANCIS  W.  GODDARD." 
Now,  so  much  for  Colorado.  Colorado  has  been  paraded  in 
our  face  as  being  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage  at  the  present 
time. 

Now,  I  do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood.  If  it  was  demon- 
strated here  clearly  that  the  women  of  New  Hampshire  asked 
for  the  privilege  of  voting  by  a  substantial  majority,  then  T 
am  the  man  to  vote  for  them,  but  until  that  is  demonstrated,  I 
am  in  favor  of  letting  the  women  have  their  own  way,  as  they 
have  had  it  for  generations, — being  the  good  wives  of  good  men, 
bringing  up  their  children  as  they  should  be  brought  up,  being  , 
good  housekeepers,  being  at  home  when  they  ought  to  be  at 
home,  and  being  away  when  they  can  be  away  under  proper 
circumstances,  and  if  they  ask  for  any  more  rights,  when  they 
can  tell  us  what  they  are,  I  will  vote  for  them  and  grant  them. 
Now,  Gentlemen,  don't  be  carried  away  by  a  sentiment,  but  use 
your  own  common  sense  whether  the  women  of  New  Hampshire 
want  to  vote  or  not.  That  is  the  question  here.  It  is  not 
whether  a  half  dozen  agitators  up  and  down  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  can  control  your  vote,  but  when  opposition  has  ap- 
peared, as  it  has  in  the  last  two  months,  men  must  take  notice 
that  a  great  majority  of  the  better  class  of  women  in  New 
Hampshire   are  against   this   proposition. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. —Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I  am 
sorry  that  I  am  limited  to  the  short  time  in  closing  the  debate 
on  this  question,  but  I  know  you  are  glad,  so  I  join  with  you, 
and  Will  try  to  be  brief,  and  speak  as  fast  as  I  can.     Before  I 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  429 

.commence  to  talk,  I  want  to  make  an  allusion  to  one  of  the 
speakers  who  has  spoken,  and  the  spectacle  he  presented  in 
this  Convention,  to  my  mind,  is  one  of  the  strongest  pictures 
that  can  be  drawn  why  women  should  have  equal  suffrage. 
Then  we  should  not  have  such  a  picture  of  him,  he  would  not 
be  surrounded  with  such  environments  as  he,  the  gentTeman 
from  Concord,  has  described,  who  cannot  eat,  sleep  or  be  happy. 
Now,  without  going  into  sentiment  of  the  matter,  without 
talking  about  what  the  women  want,  and  discussing  the  ques- 
tion of  the  honesty  of  men  in  favor  or  against  the  proposition, 
whichever  side  woman  takes,  I  am  going  to  say  to  my  friends 
on  the  other  side  that  I  am  as  honest,  I  hope,  as  you  are;  in 
the  views  that  I  entertain  I  am  as  consistent  as  you  are.  For 
ten  years  I  have  entertained  those  views  and  have  not  faltered 
on  any  occasion.  Every  time  that  I  have  raised  my  voice,  or 
ihad  a  chance  to  vote,  I  have  voted  to  give  my  sister  and  my 
mother  an  equal  right  with  me  under  the  Constitution  of  New 
Hampshire.  Back  when  the  tyranny  of  England  was  oppres- 
sive, the  people  crossed  the  water  and  founded  this  government. 
One  of  the  things  that  they  complained  of  was  the  king  of 
England  was  taxing  them  without  representation.  Today,  in 
-the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  the  good  women  of  the  state  are 
taxed  as  you  and  I  are,  and  they  are  not  represented  in  our 
legislative  halls.  Be  consistent  and  heed  the  communication 
of  the  fathers,  and  give  to  the  women  today  the  same  rights 
that  our  fathers  fought  for  a  century  and  a  half  ago.  When 
you  talk  about  submitting  it  to  the  women,  I  will  ask  my  dis- 
tinguished friend  from  Concord,  when  the  prop(t>sition  to  give 
women  the  right  to  vote  was  granted,  was  that  submitted  to 
them?  One  of  the  most  important  matters  that  we  have  is 
education, — our  educational  institutions,  the  education  of  our 
young  men  and  women, — and  yet,  Gentlemen,  you  all  know  that 
in  the  country  towns,  the  good  women  of  the  state  can  go 
there  and  vote  to  raise  money  and  spend  it  for  the  education 
of  the  boys  and  the  girls,  but  by  our  Constitution  and  our  laws, 
if  the  March  meeting  comes  the  next  day,  ihey  are  not  compe- 
tent, they  cannot  vote  as  to  how  much  salary  shall  be  paid 
the  policeman  to  guard  the  streets  when  the  sun  goes  down. 
They  can  vote  on  the  more  important  matter  in  our  govern- 
ment, namely,  educational,  but  for  guarding  the  personal  and 
property  rights  of  you  and  me  they  are  not  competent.  Is  it 
right?  Is  it  fair?  Your  answer  will  be,  "No."  And  if  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire  should  vote,  "Yes,"  they  will  be  upon  an 
•  equal  footing  with  you  and  me  on  each  and  every  matter.     More 


430     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

than  that,  the  tendency  of  all  our  legislation  has  been  to  en- 
large their  rights.  When  the  gentleman  from  Concord  has 
spoken  about  propertj^  matters,  recognition  in  matters  of  hold- 
ing property,  and  all  that,  why  should  we  not  extend  them  the 
right  of  the  ballot?  Now,  Gentlemen,  there  is  only  one  word 
I  have  time  to  say.  It  has  been  asked  here,  Who  are  in  favor 
of  woman's  suffrage?  There  were  13,000  in  New  Hampshire 
who  favored  it  ten  years  ago;  they  favor  it  now.  In  the  last 
State  Grange  a  resolution  endorsing  this  proposition  was 
passed  unanimously,  reciting  that  the  National  Grange  of  this 
country  had  four  times  advocated  it,  and  they  now  ask  you  and 
me  today  to  vote  for  this  proposition  granting  equal  suffrage  to 
the  women  of  New  Hampshire. 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  AYhitcher  to  substitute  the  report  of 
the  minority  for  that  of  the  majority,  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haver- 
hill demanded  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  demand  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  Mr. 
French  of  Moultonborough,  Mr.  Morrill  of  Centre  Harbor,  Mr. 
Barton  of  Newport,  Mr.  Spalding  of  Stoddard,  Mr.  Rossiter  of 
Claremont,  Mr.  Craig  of  Marlow,  Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter,  Mr. 
Hall  of  Dover,  Mr.  Clark  of  Haverhill,  and  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  ordered. 

YEAS.  ^ 

EooKiNGHAM  CouNTY.  Batchclder  of  Deerfield,  Benson, 
Leddy,  Anderson,  Fuller  of  Exeter,  Sanborn,  Healey,  Prid- 
ham,  Leighton,  Batchelder  of  Portsmouth,  Lovering,  Gowen. 

Strafford  County.  Clark  of  Barrington,  Main,  Sherry, 
Whitteraore,  Hall  of  Dover,  Willson  of  Farmington,  Roberts, 
Richards,  Preston,  Meader,  Grant  of  Rollinsford,  Durgin. 

Belknap  County.  McDuffee  of  Alton,  Bean  of  Belmont, 
Parsons,  Drake  of  Laconia,  Estes. 

Carroll  County.  Andrews  of  Bartlett,  Hoyt  of  Madison, 
Lamprey,  Abbott,  Hobbs  of  Wolfeboro. 

Merrimack  County.  Smith  of  Allenstown,  Stone  of  An- 
dover,  Farrand,  Marden  of  Concord,  Hollis  of  Ward  3,  Con- 
cord, Lyford,  Corning,  Morrill  of  Concord,  Bancroft,  Galla- 
gher, Henneberry,  Dean,  Gardner,    Woodbury   of   Fran  Win, 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  431 

Mitchell  of  Hooksett,  Boutwell,  Wellman  of  N'ew  London, 
Drake  of  Pittsfield,  Shaw  of  Salisbury,  Sawyer. 

Hillsborough  County.  Fessenden,  Patch,  Hadley,  See- 
ton,  Tait,  Pattee  of  Manchester,  Lindqiiist,  Cavanaugh,  Shon- 
tell,  Broderick,  Eagan,  Glynn,  Howe  of  Manchester,  Magan, 
McDonough,  Stevens  of  Manchester,  Eodelsperger,  Schiller, 
Tinkham,  Van  Vliet,  Geoffrion,  Hebert,  Turcotte,  Eaton, 
Keyes,  McLane,  Wadleigh  of  Milford,  Andrews  of  Nashua, 
French  of  Nashua,  Parker  of  Nashua,  Wason,  Moran  of 
Nashua,  Shea,  Clancy,  Ducharme,  Marden  of  New  Boston, 
Davis  of  New  Ipswich,  Hobbs  of  Pelham,  Jones  of  Peterbor- 
ough, Smith  of  Peterborough,  Smith  of  Sharon,  Colburn, 
Nelson. 

Oheshihe  Countt.  Slade,  Blake,  Hubbard,  Winn,  Tem- 
ple, Duncan,  Norwood,  Faulkner,  Craig,  Twitchell,  Newell, 
Nims  of  Westmoreland,  Ball,  Fisher. 

Sullivan  County.  Neal  of  Ac  worth.  Young  of  Charles- 
town,  Brooks,  Hurd  of  Claremont,  Upham,  Comings,  Parker 
of  Dempster,  Tracy,  Philbrick,  Bailey  of  Sunapee,  Newton. 

Grafton  County.  DeGross,  Carlton,  Barney  of  Grafton, 
Clark  of  Haverhill,  Whitcher,  Curry,  Stevens  of  Landaff, 
Waterman,  Brummer,  Oakes,  Shute  of  Lyman,  Ford,  Clement, 
Green  of  Waterville,  Green  of  Woodstock. 

Coos  County.  Smith  of  Berlin,  Noyes,  Wolf,  Wight,  Ben- 
nett, Cleaveland,  Morris,  Hancock,  Potter,  Simpson,  Pattee  of 
Stratford,  Garland. 

NAYS. 

Rockingham  County.  Griffin,  Knights,  McDuffee  of 
Candia,  Collins  of  Danville,  Shepard,  Webster,  Ingalls,  East- 
man of  Exeter,  Scammon,  Holmes,  Emerson,  Lane,  Rowe,  Col- 
lins of  Kingston,  Morse  of  Newmarket,  Willey,  Hayford,  Dow, 
Towle,  Bat<3helder  of  Nottingham,  Hill  of  Plaistow,  Entwistle, 
Hett,  Boynton,  Sise,  Mitchell  of  Portsmouth,  Moran  of  Ports- 
mouth, Guptill,  Brown  of  Raymond,'  Drake  of  Rye,  Gordon, 
Hall  of  Salem,  Foote,  Jewell  of  South  Hampton,  Cochran. 

Strafford  County.  Hurd  of  Dover,  Neal  of  Dover,  Foss, 
Knox,  Snell,  Sanders  of  Madbury,  Hanson,  Berry  of  New  Dur- 


432    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

}iam,  Marcotte,  Hoyt  of  Rochester,  Wallace,  Haines,  Cote, 
Flanagan,  Letourneau,  Leclerc  of  Somersworth. 

Bele:nap  County.  Moore  of  Barnstead,  Morrill  of  Centre 
Harbor,  Morrill  of  Gilford,  Prescott,  Richardson,  Busiel, 
Young  of  Laconia,  Veazey  of  Laconia,  Thyng,  Fellows,  Til- 
ton. 

Carroll  Coun^tt.  Povall,  Wiggin,  Chandler,  Fifield, 
Shirley,  Robertson,  Wormwood,  Huckins,  Morey,  Trickey, 
.French  of  Moultonborough,  Weeks  of  Ossipee,  Wentworth, 
.Pollard,  Berry  of  Wakefield. 

Merrimack  County.  Buxton,  Kittredge,  Clough  of  Can- 
terbury, Shaw  of  Chichester,  Tibbetts,  Mitchell  of  Concord, 
Ximball,  Martin,  Flint,  Hatch,  Quimby  of  Concord,  Hill  of 
Concord,  Burnham,  Tripp,  Bean  of  Franklin,  Clifford,  Jones 
^f  Franklin,  Wilkins,  Sargent,  Donigan,  Young  of  Northfield, 
George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  Henry  T.  Fowler  of  Pem- 
broke, Clark  of  Pittsfield,  Wadleigh  of  Sutton,  Carroll,  Good- 
Jhue. 

Hillsborough  County.  Harvell,  Soper,  Pierce  of  Ben- 
nington, Dutton,  Hardy,  Brown  of  Greenville,  Ware,  Flan- 
.ders,  Haslet,  Hayden,  Brown  of  Hudson,  Tarbell,  Richer, 
Brown  of  Manchester,  Warren,  Jones  of  Manchester,  Libbey, 
Pillsbury  of  Manchester,  Haselton  of  Manchester,  Connor  of 
Ward  5,  Manchester,  Ryan,  Chatel,  Morse  of  Manchester, 
Woodbury  of  Manchester,  Moquin,  Biron,  Demers,  Martel, 
Chevrette,  Donnelly,  Leclerc  of  Manchester,  Parker  of  Merri- 
mack, Connor  of  Mont  Vernon,  Greeley,  Gilmore,  Lampron, 
Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Phaneuf,  Tolles,  Dionne,  Morse  of 
Weare,  Bales. 

Cheshire  County.  Pierce  of  Dublin,  Mower  of  Jaffrey, 
Pressler,  Wellman  of  Keene,  Clark  of  Keene,  Madden,  Fuller 
of  Marlborough,  Ruffle,  Fletcher,  Nims  of  Roxbury,  Spalding 
of  Stoddard,  Goodnow,  Whitcomb  of  Swanzey,  Stone  of  Troy, 
Spaulding  of  Walpole. 

SuLLiYAN  County.  Rossiter,  Davis  of  Croydon,  Booth, 
Howard,  Winch,  Barton,  Johnson  of  Newport,  Robinson,  Hix- 
:8on. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  433 

Grafton  County.  Mathews,  Parker  of  Benton,  Whipple, 
Moulton,  Barney  of  Canaan,  Merrill,  Young  of  Easton,  Avery, 
Wells,  Spooner,  Jewell  of  Groton,  Storrs,  Updyke,  Lawrence, 
Carter,  Hatton,  True,  Bailey  of  Littleton,  Eastman  of  Little- 
ton, Veazie  of  Littleton,  Grant  of  Lyme,  Gilchrist,  Carr, 
Keniston,  Herbert,  Hazeltine  of  Thornton,  Shute  of  Went- 
worth. 

Coos  CouNTT.  Smyth,  Goss,  Sullivan,  Sheehe,  Johnson 
of  Colebrook,  Evans,  Clough  of  Jefferson,  Drew,  Watson, 
Pike,  Knapp,  Bowker. 

Pairs. 

Mr.  Fairbanks  of  Manchester  was  paired  with  Mr.  Folsom 
of  Dover;  Mr.  Little  of  Hill  was  paired  with  Mr.  Wright  of 
Sanbornton;  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester  in  favor  of  the  meas- 
ure, was  paired  with  Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester  against  the 
measure;  Mr.  Wilson  of  Manchester  was  paired  with  Mr. 
Stewart  of  Berlin;  Mr.  Hamblett  of  N'ashua  was  paired  with 
Mr.  Runnells  of  Nashua. 

One  hundred  and  forty-nine  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the 
affirmative  and  209  in  the  negative,  the  motion  to  substitute 
did  not  prevail. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Consti- 
tution as  proposed  in  the  resolution, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed,  and  the 
recommendation  of  the  Committee  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  having  had  under  consideration  the  resolution 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense 
of  the  Committee  that  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  be  submitted  to  the  people  which  will  give  to  the 
legislature  the  right  to  classify  intangibles  and  growing  wood 
and  timber  for  the  purposes  of  taxation  and  to  make  reason- 
able exemptions  and  further  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes 
from  intangible  property,  submit  the  following  amendment 
to  Article  5  and  recommend  its  adoption: — 


434     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Ke&olution  Xo.  58. 
Relating  to  Taxation. 

Resolved,  That  Article  5,  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  inserting  in  the  twenty-second  line  of  said 
article  after  the  words  "and  upon  all  the  estates  within  the 
same,"  the  following:  "but  the  said  General  Court  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax 
growing  wood  and  timber  and  money  at  interest  including 
money  in  savings  banks,  and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on 
incomes  from  stock  of  foreign  corporations  and  money  at 
interest  except  on  incomes  from  money  deposited  in  savings 
banks  in  this  state  received  by  the  depositors  and  it  may 
graduate  such  taxes  according  to  the  amount  of  the  incomes 
and  may  grant  reasonable  exemptions;  provided,  that  if  such 
taxes  be  levied  on  incomes  from  stock  and  money  at  interest, 
no  other  taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon  against  the  owner  or 
holder  thereof," — so  that  the  article  as  amended  shall  read  as 
follows: 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are  here- 
by given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court,  from  time 
to  time  to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of  whole- 
some and  reasonable  orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordinances,  direc- 
tions, and  instructions,  either  with  penalties  or  without,  so 
as  the  same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitu- 
tion, as  they  may  judge  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  this 
state  and  for  the  governing  and  ordering  thereof  and  of  the 
subjects  of  the  same,  for  the  necessary  support  and  defense  of 
the  government  thereof;  and  to  name  and  settle  biennially, 
or  provide  by  fixed  laws  for  the  naming  and  settling  all  civil 
officers  within  this  state,  such  officers  excepted  the  election 
and  appointment  of  whom  are  hereafter  in  this  form  of  gov- 
ernment otherwise  provided  for;  and  to  set  forth  the  several 
duties,  powers,  and  limits  of  the  several  civil  and  military 
officers  of  this  state,  and  the  forms  of  such  oaths  or  affirma- 
tions as  shall  be  respectively  administered  unto  them  for  the 
execution  of  thoir  several  offices  and  places,  so  as  the  same 


Thuksday,  June  20,  1912.  435 

be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitution;  and,  also, 
to  impose  fines,  mulcts,  imprisonments,  and  other  punish- 
ments; and  to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and  reasonable 
assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of,  and 
residents  within,  the  said  state,  and  upon  all  estates  within 
the  same,  but  the  said  General  Court  shall  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax  growing  wood 
and  timber  and  money  at  interest  including  money  in  savings 
banks,  and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on  incomes  from  stock 
of  foreign  corporations  and  money  at  interest  except  on  in- 
comes from  money  deposited  in  savings  banks  in  this  state 
received  by  the  depositors,  and  it  may  graduate  such  taxes 
according  to  the  amount  of  the  incomes  and  may  grant  rea- 
sonable exemptions;  provided,  that  if  such  taxes  be  levied  on 
incomes  from  stock  and  money  at  interest  no  other  taxes 
shall  be  levied  thereon  against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof, 
to  be  issued  and  disposed  of  by  warrant,  under  the  hand  of 
the  governor  of  this  state  for  the  time  being,  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  council,  for  the  public  service,  in  the 
necessary  defense  and  support  of  the  government  of  this  state 
and  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  subjects  thereof, 
according  to  such  acts  as  are  or  shall  be  in  force  within  the 
same.  Prmided,  that  the  General  Court  shall  not  authorize 
any  town  to  loan  or  give  its  money  or  credit,  directly  or  in- 
directly, for  the  benefit  of  any  corporation  having  for  its 
object  a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in  any  way  aid  the  same  by 
taking  its  stock  or  bonds. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee  that  the  Eesolution  be  agreed  to  by  the 
Convention, — 

With  that  question  pending,  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved 
that  the  resolution  be  laid  on  the  table  to  be  printed  and 
that  it  be  made  a  Special  Order  for  2:05  o'clock  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Ooncord. — Mr.  President,  I  desire  at  this  time 
simply  to  make  a  brief  statement.     The  Committee  has  endeav- 


436     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ored  to  follow  the  instructions  of  the  Convention.  They  have 
re-read  those  instructions  time  and  again.  They  have  also  en- 
deavored to  make  clear  the  meaning-  of  those  instructions  in 
this  amendment. 

Two  changes,  in  fact  three  changes,  were  made  in  the  draft 
as  it  appeared  in  the  Manchester  Union.  The  draft,  as  it  ap- 
peared in  the  Union,  provided  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate 
and  tax  growing  wood  and  timber  lands.  We  struck  out  the 
word,  "lands,"  so  as  to  strictly  comply  with  our  instructions. 
We  also  inserted  "foreign"  before  the  word  "corporations,"  the 
idea  of  the  Committee  being  to  favor  domestic  corporations. 
Now,  in  regard  to  the  savings  bank  tax,  which  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  my  colleague,  Mr.  Mitchell,  desired  to  have  in- 
serted. We  used  the  words,  "Except  on  incomes  from  money 
deposited  in  savings  banks  in  this  state  received  by  the  de- 
positors." 

These  words  are  intended  to  prevent  an  income  tax  against 
the  individual  depositor  on  the  income  or  dividends  he  may  re- 
ceive from  his  deposit  in  the  savings  bank,  and  are  not  intended 
to  prevent  the  taxation  of  the  banks  on  the  basis  of  their  in- 
come rather  than  on  the  property  basis,  as  at  present,  but  leave 
it  to  the  legislature  to  tax  banks  in  either  way.  This  last  state.- 
ment  I  desired  to  be  accurately  taken,  and,  therefore,  1  have 
read  it.  That  is  the  only  explanation  I  desire  to  make  at  this 
time.  It  is  my  judgment,  Mr.  President,  that  we  might  better 
make  this  a  Special  Order  for  this  afternoon. 

On  a  vina  voce  vote  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  12:45  o'clock. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  met  at  2  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote 
whereby  Resolution  No.  58,  Relating  to  Taxation,  was  made 
a  Special  Order  for  2.05  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  437 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord, 
that  Eesolution  No.  58,  Eelating  to  Taxation,  be  made  a 
Special  Order  for  2.05  o'clock  this  afternoon, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  did  not  prevail. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyfoxd  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was 
recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department  were  given  leave  to  sit  during  the 
afternoon  session  of  the  Cfonvention. 

Mr.  Bowker  of  Whitefield,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Eights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred 
Eesolution  No.  23,  Eelating  to  Pensions,  having  considered 
the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution : — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed  in  the  said  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Commit- 
tee,— 

Mr.  Folmm  of  Dover. — ^Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  voted,  at 
their  last  election,  to  hold  a  Constitutional  Convention,  and  the 
legislature  appropriated  the  necessary  amount  of  money.  They 
voted  to  hold  a  Constitutional  Convention  because  they  thought 
there  might  be  inaccuracies  and  imperfections  in  our  present 
Constitution. 

Resolution  No.  23  is  for  the  purpose  of  striking  out  a  small 
sentence:  Resolved,  That  Article  36  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words,  "and  never  for  more  than 
one  year  at  a  time,"  so  that  the  Article  will  read  as  follows: 

"AnT.  36.  Economy  being  a  most  essential  virtue  in  all  states, 
especially  in  a  young  one,  no  pension  should  be  granted  but 
in  consideration  of  actual  services;  and  such  pensions  ought  to 
be  granted  with  great  caution  by  the  legislature." 

The  words  which  are  asked  to  be  stricken  out  were  added 
thereto.     This  Constitution,  as  you  have  heard  so  many  times, 


438     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

has  carried  us  through  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  or 
thereabouts.  The  question  of  pensions  to  certain  deserving 
public  servants  was  recognized  at  that  time,  and  this  limita- 
tion was  put  upon  them,  that  no  pension  should  be  granted  to 
such  faithful  public  servants  except  by  a  vote  each  year.  Now, 
the  legislature  has,  from  time  to  time,  under  this  section  of 
the  Constitution,  given  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire the  privilege  of  pensioning  their  public  servants  who  have 
been  faithful.  There  are  many  times  that  a  public  servant 
should  be  pensioned.  There  are  firemen  who  are  injured  in  the 
discharge  of  their  duty.  There  are  policemen  who  are  injured 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duty.  There  are  policemen  and  fire- 
men, and  there  may  be  others,  who  have  served  their  towns 
and  cities  long  and  faithfully,  and  should  be  granted  pensions. 
For  instance,  take  the  police  ofiicers  of  any  of  the  large  cities 
of  our  state.  A  man  enters  the  service  as  a  young  man,  serves 
twenty-five  years,  or  whatever  the  limitation  may  be,  and  at 
the  end  of  that  time  is  entirely  unfitted  for  further  physical, 
active  service  as  a  policeman  on  the  force  of  our  large  cities, 
and,  if  turned  out,  is  actually  physically  unfitted,  by  reason  of 
old  age,  to  labor  further  in  any  other  capacity. 

Now,  then.  Gentlemen,  the  only  *  question  here  before  this 
Convention  is  this:  Shall  such  public  servants  be  required  to 
have  a  pension  granted  to  them  each  year,  or  should  we,  under 
this  Constitution,  allow  the  legislature  and  the  cities  and  towns 
to  grant  a  pension  for  a  term  longer  than  one  year?  If  this 
amendment  is  adopted,  contrary  to  the  report  of  your  Com- 
mittee, you  can  grant  a  pension  for  one  year,  and  I  believe 
oftentimes  it  is  wise  to  do  so;  but  I  believe.  Gentlemen,  that 
there  should  be  a  provision  in  our  Constitution  that,  if  our 
people  desire  to  grant  a  pension  for  an  extended  term  of  years, 
they  may  have  the  privilege  of  doing  so.  I  believe  we  should 
not  limit  the  financial  budget,  the  appropriations  of  our  cities 
and  our  towns,  by  a  one-year  limit  of  this  kind.  They  should 
have  the  privilege,  if  they  so  desire,  to  extend  it.  I  cannot  see 
that  any  harm  is  done  to  any  one.  There  may  be  circumstances 
under  which  a  one-year  pension  should  be  granted,  but  I  be- 
lieve there  are  also  circumstances  under  which  a  longer  term 
pension  might  well  be  granted,  with  injury  to  no  one;  and  that 
is  the  reason  why  I  have  taken  the  floor  at  this  time  to  oppose 
the  report  of  the  Committee.  I  believe  this  amendment  can 
fairly  and  justly  be  adopted  into  our  Constitution,  without  in- 
jury to  any  one. 

Mr.  Hall  of  Dover. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  would  say 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  439 

a  single  word.  The  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  Execu- 
tive Department  gave  a  hearing  of  some  considerable  length  to 
the  promoters  of  this  amendment,  and  considered  the  matter 
very  carefully.  The  principal  demand  for  pensions,  "of  course, 
has  been  in  our  cities  for  pensions  for  disabled  firemen  and 
policemen,  who  were  claimed  to  have  been'  injured  and  disabled, 
and  in  most  cases  have  been  injured  and  disabled,  in  the  line 
of  their  duty,  and  these  pensions  have  been  granted  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  in  the  cities  of  the  state,  but  always  under 
the  constitutional  limitation  for  one  year  at  a  time.  The  ob- 
ject here  is  to  get  rid  of  that  limitation  of  one  year,  which 
our  fathers,  as  we  think  wisely,  placed  in  the  Constitution. 
The  legislature  has  done  what  it  could  to  facilitate  the  getting 
of  pensions  and  granting  of  pensions  under  this  constitutional 
provision.  They  have  passed  several  acts  enabling  city  govern- 
ments and  towns  to  vote  pensions,  but,  of  course,  always  under 
the  restriction  that  they  are  to  be  voted  for  one  year  alone. 

Now,  we  looked  upon  this  application  to  take  the  one  year's 
limitation  out  of  the  Consitution  as  an  entering  wedge  to  pos- 
sible great  claims  and  importunities,  and  leading  to  political 
agitations  which  would  be  undesirable,  and  of  which  we  know 
not  the  end. 

Our  view  of  the  matter  was  that  it  might  open  the  door  to 
great  expense  and  perhaps  abuse,  and  that,  inasmuch  as  all 
governments  are  jealous  of  civil  pensions,  and  ought  to  be,  it 
was  not  advisable  to  amend  our  present  Constitution  in  that 
respect,  if  under  it  reasonably  adequate  relief  could  be  ob- 
tained by  those  who  deserve  help  and  support  of  this  character; 
and  so  we  have  reported  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  take  that 
limitation  out  of  the  Constitution. 

If,  however,  it  is  thought  wise  to  make  the  law  more  ac- 
commodating and  favorable  to  a  system  of  civil  pensions,  the 
Committee  would  make  no  strenuous  opposition  to  the  proposed 
amendment. 

Mr.  Young  of  Mancliester. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  have  just  a  word  or  two  that  I  would  like  to  say 
in  opposition  to  the  Committee's  report.  In  Manchester  we 
have  been,  I  think,  perfectly  willing  to  grant  pensions  to  sev- 
eral of  our  deserving  policemen  and  firemen,  and  would  do  so 
for  a  term  of  years  if  we  were  allowed.  It  seems  unjust  and 
unreasonable  to  compel  a  man  who  is  entitled  to  a  pension  to 
go  before  the  authorities  having  that  in  charge  every  year,  and 
beg  them  to  extend  his  pension  one  year  longer.  If  he  is  de- 
serving of  a  pension  at  all,  he  is  deserving  of  it  as  long  as  he 
requires  it,  without  having  to  go  to  this  trouble  every  year. 


440    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

I  can  recall  one  case  of  a  fireman  who  was  injured  in  the 
discharge  of  his  duty.  He  entered  the  burning  building,  and 
as  he  stepped  to  the  door  a  blast  of  hot  air  threw  him  across 
the  street.  He  has  never  done  a  moment's  hard  labor  since 
then,  and  never  will.  Now,  we  would  like  the  opportunity  of 
placing  him  beyond  the  possibility  of  w^ant  in  his  old  age  if  we 
could,  without  having  to  take  this  matter  up  every  year  and 
go  before  new  members  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  and  new 
members  of  the  Common  Council,  members  who,  perhaps,  might 
have  a  little  personal  feeling  in  the  matter,  and  urge  them 
to  take  this  action.  There  seems  to  be  no  sensible  reason,  in 
my  mind,  for  having  this  time  limit  in  the  Constitution,  and 
I  sincerely  hope  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  will  be  voted 
down,  so  that  deserving  people  in  all  parts  of  our  state  can  get 
their  just  rights. 

Mr.  Young  of  Laconia. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  it  has  been  suggested  here  this  morning  that  it 
is  costing  about  eight  dollars  a  minute  to  run  this  Convention. 
If  that  is  true,  taking  into  consideration  an  absence  of  a  day 
since  it  began,  I  figure  I  have  listened  to  about  twenty-three 
thousand  dollars  worth.  There  has  not  seemed  to  be  any 
necessity  for  me  to  enter  into  the  debate  because  there  have 
always  been  those  who  could  talk  much  better  than  myself, 
and  who  could  explain  the  situation  much  more  thoroughly 
than  I  could. 

I  feel  a  slight  degree  of  interest,  to  say  the  least,  in  the 
proposition  which  is  before  this  Convention  for  consideration, 
and  that  I  may  very  properly  speak  in  behalf  of  one  class  of 
public  servants  who  perform  public  duties  for  almost  no  re- 
muneration whatever  in  the  smaller  towns,  because  I  myself 
have  lived  in  one  of  the  smaller  towns,  and  during  the  time 
I  lived  there,  for  seven  years,  I  was  a. member  of  the  volunteer 
fire  department,  and  for  his  service  each  member  in  that  de- 
partment received  $12  a  year.  It  was  not  understood  we  were 
paid  for  our  services.  It  was  understood  we  were  just  what 
we  were  called,  a  volunteer  department,  but,  nevertheless, 
it  was  as  much  the  duty  of  each  member  of  that  department  in 
that  small  town  to  answer  to  the  call  of  fire  as  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  man  in  the  larger  places,  like  Manchester,  to  respond 
when  he  is  called  and  paid  a  fair  day's  pay  for  his  work. 

Now,  it  sometimes  happens, — it  has  not  happened  so  very 
many  times  perhaps, — but  it  sometimes  happens  that  a  man 
tinder    those    circumstances   is    injured.    It   may  be   he    has   a 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  441 

family.  Ordinarily  the  men  who  are  in  such  departments  as  I 
have  mentioned  are  not  men  of  means.  They  are  more  com- 
monly the  workingmen,  as  we  say,  and  occasion  may  arise 
where  the  payment  of  a  small  pension  would  be  of  inestimable 
benefit  to  the  man  and  to  his  family,  and  I  believe  that  the 
people  of  this  state  should  take  into  consideration  the  benefits 
of  the  services  of  the  firemen  in  the  smaller  towns,  for  I 
imagine  that  there  are  a  great  many  towns  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  where  a  fire  department  is  maintained  as  a  volun- 
teer fire  department,  that  is,  a  department  where  the  mem- 
bers receive  little  or  no  compensation  for  the  work  which  they 
actually  do,  but,  nevertheless,  the  members  of  which  do  do 
efficient  work  when  they  are  called  upon  to  attend  a  fire. 

Now,  the  same  argument  would  apply  in  behalf  of  policemen 
in  the  smaller  towns.  I  am  interested,  perhaps,  more  for  the 
firemen  because  I  am  a  little  closer  to  that  end  of  it,  and  I 
imagine  that  probably  the  policemen,  where  there  is  a  regular 
police  force,  are  better  paid  than  the  volunteer  fire  department 
members,  but  I  believe  it  can  do  no  harm  to  fix  the  Constitution 
so  it  will  be  possible  for  towns  and  cities,  should  occasion  arise, 
to  treat  the  members  of  the  departments  which  do  its  public 
service, — ^^and  I  believe  do  it  efficiently, — as  public  servants,»and 
to  extend  to  them  that  courtesy  to  which  I  believe  they  are 
entitled  if  misfortune  overtakes  them.  And  I  sincerely  hope, 
Gentlemen,  speaking  in  behalf  of  the  smaller  towns,  and  also 
speaking  in  behalf  of  the  firemen  of  my  own  city, — we  call  it 
a  volunteer  fire  department  up  there  because  the  men  only  get 
$50  a  year;  it  doesn't  average  a  dollar  a  fire,  and  if  a  man  has 
decent  clothes,  he  will  spoil  more  clothes  in  the  course  of  a 
year  than  he  can  buy  with  his  whole  salary, — ^but  if  it  should 
happen  that  a  man  should  fall  from  a  broken  ladder  or  be 
injured  by  an  air  blast,  which  our  friend  here  has  suggested, 
or  by  any  of  those  calamities  which  are  ever  present  in  that 
kind  of  work,  I  believe  the  Constitution  of  the  state  ought  to 
be  such,  and  the  laws  of  the  state  ought  to  be  such,  that  we  can 
keep  him  from  want  without  his  becoming  a  public  charge.  I 
sincerely  hope  the  report  of  this  Committee  will  not  be  ac- 
cepted, but  that  some  measure  will  go  in  here  that  will  make  It 
possible  to  bring  about  this  change. 

Mr.  Burnham  of  Dunbarton. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  I  am  one  of  Uncle  Sam's  pensioners,  and  I 
can  see  no  earthly  reason  why  a  man  who  has  faithfully  served 
as  a  policeman  or  a  fireman,  and  deserves  a  pension,  should  be 
required  every  year  to  have  that  pension  renewed,  any  more 
than  members  of  the  G.  A.  E. 


442     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Bean  of  Franklin.— ^Lr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  just  a  word  in  regard  to  this  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution.  I  will  say  that  a  year  ago  last  win- 
ter, at  the  last  General  Court,  a  bill  was  introduced  and  passed 
both  houses,  giving  a  fireman  a  pension  of  from  $100  to  $500 
per  year  if  he  is  permanently  disabled  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duty,  or  has  served  his  town  or  city  faithfully  for  twenty-five 
years;  but  this  has  to  be  voted  on  at  every  town  meeting  or 
city  election,  and  I  do  not  see.  Gentlemen,  why  this  should  be 
voted  on.  If  a  man  has  worked  faithfully  for  twenty-five  years, 
and  has  served  his  department,  and  taken  all  chances  of  his 
life  in  saving  people's  lives,  and  even  a  policeman  the  same, 
I  do  not  see  why  he  should  have  to  apply  every  year  before  he 
gets  his  $100.  He  has  got  to  get  somebody  to  fight  this  thing 
for  him,  has  got  to  go  before  the  selectmen  and  get  them  to 
put  it  into  the  town  warrant  every  year,  and  I  will  say,  Mr. 
President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  that  I  hope  this 
resolution  will  pass. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  I  intend  to  occupy  only  a  very  few  moments 
of  your  time  in  discussing  this  question.  The  gentleman  of 
the 'Grand  Army  referred  to  pensions  granted  by  the  United 
States  for  services  rendered  upon  the  field  of  battle,  and  I  think 
you  would  all  consider  it  very  unjust  if  the  government  re- 
quired us  every  year  to  renew  our  application  for  a  pension. 
I  have  seen  on  scores  of  battlefields  the  sacrificing  heroism  of 
those  who  are  today  drawing  pensions  from  the  general  gov- 
ernment. I  have  also  seen  our  firemen  contending  against  the 
flames  on  buildings  wherein  were  confined  women  and  children, 
whose  lives  were  in  danger,  and,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
courage  of  those  firemen,  who  took  their  lives  in  their  hands 
and  entered  those  buildings  to  rescue  the  men  and  women  and 
children  who  were  there  surrounded  by  the  flames,  they  wouHl 
have  perished.  From  my  observation  and  experience,  I  con- 
sider that  it  takes  more  courage  for  a  flreman  to  enter  a 
building  to  rescue  people  than  it  did  the  soldiers  upon  the  field 
of  battle  in  killing  people,  and  I  can  see  no  reason  why,  if 
soldiers  are  not  required  to  prove  their  claims  every  year,  a 
fireman  or  a  policeman  who  has  served  his  city  and  has  become 
disabled  in  the  service  should  be  required  to  make  an  appli- 
cation once  a  year. 

I  have  seen  policemen  in  my  own  city  who  have  been  injured 
in  the  performance  of  their  duty,  by  bites  or  assaults  of  crim- 
inals whom  they  were  attempting  to  arrest,  and  were  laid  up 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  443 

for  a  few  days,  and  their  pay  was  cut  out  during  the  time  they 
were  away  from  the  service,  although  away  owing  to  injuries 
received  in  the  performance  of  their  duty. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  fair,  as  long  as  we  are 
dealing  with  such  a  couraegous  set  of  men  as  are  our  firemen 
and  our  policemen,  that  we  should  require  them  to  apply  every 
year  when  they  are  so  disabled  that  they  never  can  hope  to  re- 
cover during  their  life,  be  it  long  or  short.  I  hope  this  report, 
Gentlemen,  will  not  be  adopted,  and  that  we  may  submit  that 
amendment  that  will  authorize  our  cities  and  towns  to  take 
care,  not  as  paupers,  not  in  the  poorhouse,  not  in  the  alms- 
houses, but  to  provide  for  taking  care  of  those  heroic  men  who 
have  given  up  their  health  and  offered  their  lives  in  your  service 
and  in  protecting  your  property  and  saving  the  lives  of  your 
wives  and  children. 

The  President. — The  question  is.  Shall  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee  be  adopted? 

Mr.  Young  of  Laconia. — Mr.  President,  am  I  correct  in  under- 
standing that  those  who  are  in  favor  of  striking  this  out  of 
the  Constitution  should  vote  "no"  on  this  report? 

The  President. — The  Committee  report  that  it  is  inexpedient 
to  adppt  the  proposed  amendment.  A  vote  in  favor  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment  would  be  a  negative  vote  on  this  vote. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  appeared  to  prevail. 
Mr.  Pressler  of  Keene  called  for  a  division. 

A  division  being  had,  the  Chair  declared  the  vote  mani- 
festly in  the  negative,  and  the  recommendation  of  the  Com- 
mittee was  not  adopted. 

Mr.  Folsom  of  Dover  moved  that  the  Convention  agree  to 
the  amendment  proposed  in  the  resolution. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Hall  of  Dover,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolu- 
tion N'o.  8,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  Certain  Officers,  hav- 


444     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ing  considered  the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following 
resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  said  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill 
of  Eights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred 
Resolution  No,  44,  Relating  to  Councillor  Districts,  having 
considered  the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following 
resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  the  amendment  proposed  in  the  resolution 
be  agreed  to. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted, 
and  the  resolution  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill 
of  Rights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred 
Resolution  No.  28,  Providing  for  Election  by  Plurality  Vote 
of  the  Governor  and  Other  Officials,  having  considered  the 
same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  the  said  proposed  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Commit- 
tee,— 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill  called  for  a  division. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester. — ^Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen, 
as  the  report  comes  from  the  Committee  of  which  I  am  a  mem- 
ber, and  my  name  is  signed  to  it,  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  445 

There  are  four  separate  resolutions  introduced  here,  and  this 
report  is  on  one  of  them.  The  report  on  the  other  three  is  also 
on  the  desk. 

The  Committee  has  reported  unanimously  in  favor  of  a  plu- 
rality electing  certain  of&cials  who  are  now  required  to  be 
elected  by  majority  vote.  These  are,  Governor,  councillors  for 
five  districts,  and  twenty-four  senators. 

We  have  reported  favorably  a  resolution  which  is  general 
in  its  character,  and  we  have  reported  adversely  on  the  other 
three  because  they  are  covered  by  this  resolution.  Now,  it  is 
a  very  plain  question  which  is  put  squarely  up  to  this  Conven- 
tion, a  question  which,  in  my  opinion,  requires  very  little  dis- 
cussion or  argument.  At  the  present  time  the  spectacle  is  pre- 
sented to  us  once  in  a  while,  and  may  be  presented  to  us  at 
any  time,  of  these  three  different  classes  of  officers  being  voted 
for  by  the  people,  a  failure  to  give  a  majority  vote  to  any  one 
man,  but  pretty  nearly  a  certainty  that  someone  will  receive 
more  than  anybody  else,  and  the  election  is  thrown  into  our 
legislature,  with  the  chance  of  a  partisan  advantage  being 
taken  there,  one  way  or  another.  Now,  the  Committee  took 
the  ground  that  this  should  be  changed.  They  felt,  instead  of 
requiring  a  majority  vote,  and  perhaps  having  that  situation 
arise,  that  the  restriction  against  the  plurality  election  and  the 
requirement  of  the  majority  election  having  been  eliminated 
from,  I  think,  every  other  office  but  these  three,  it  should  be 
eliminated  from  these  three  classes,  and  I  trust  the  action  of 
the  Committee  will  be  backed  up  and  ratified  by  this  Conven- 
tion. 

Division  being  had,  257  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  10  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  Committee  was  adopted. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill 
of  Eights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  were  referred 
Eesolution  No.  34,  Eelating  to  the  Election  of  Officials  by 
Plurality  Vote,  Eesolution  No.  36,  Eelating  to  the  Election 
of  Officials  by  Plurality  Vote,  Eesolution  No.  54,  Eelating 
to  Election  of  Governor  by  Plurality  Vote,  and  Eesolution 


446     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

No.  55,  Relating  to  Election  of  Senators,  having  considered 
the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  agree  to  the  same,  the 
subject-matter  of  said  resolutions  being  covered  by  Resolu- 
tion No.  28. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  a  Committee  of  five  be  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  expediency  of  publishing  a  report  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention  verbatim,  or  in  abbreviated  form,  and, 
if  deemed  expedient,  to  recommend  a  plan  for  the  publica- 
tion and  distribution  of  such  reports. 

'Mi.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  moved  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  future  mode  of 
amending  the  Constitution,  the  same  being, — 

Resolution  No.  3,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending 
the  Constitution. 

Resolution  No.  11,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending 
the  Constitution. 

Resolution  No.  16,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending 
the  Constitution. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  "Wadleigh  of  Mil- 
ford, — 

T?ie  President.— The  Chair  would  suggest  that  the  motion  is 
in  order,  but,  that  the  matter  of  taxation  having  been  made 
a  Special  Order  for  this  afternoon,  if  the  Committee  on  Leg- 
islative Department  should  get  ready  to  report  something,  the 
printed  bills  being  now  here,  we  should  go  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole  to  discuss  the  matter  of  proposed  amendments  on 
future  mode  of  amending  the  Constitution  with  the  under- 
standing that  if  the  Committee  comes  back  we  shall  come  back 
into  Convention  in  order  to  take  up  the  taxation  matter. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  447 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 
In"  Committee,  of  the  Whole'. 
(Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  make  at 
this  time  a  motion,  or  at  least  at  the  conclusion  of  a  few  re- 
marks, that  we  report  to  the  Convention  that  Kesolution  No. 
11,  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr,  Cav- 
anaugh,  be  reported  favorably  to  the  Convention,  and  that 
Eesolution  No.  16,  introduced  by  myself,  and  Eesolution  No.  3, 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Flint,  be  reported  un- 
favorably, so  the  remarks  I  wish  to  make  are  entirely  on  the 
resolution  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr. 
Cavanaugh. 

Now,  this  resolution  provides  that  two  successive  legislatures, 
by  majority  vote,  and  then  by  ratification  by  two  thirds  of 
the  voters  of  the  state  voting  on  the  same,  may  amend  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  future,  and  it  also  provides  for  a  Convention 
such  as  we  now  have.  Now,  let  me  say  that  this  is  no  fad  of 
mine,  and  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  two  or  three  things 
to  prove  this.  There  have  been  different  opinions  expressed 
here  during  this  Convention  as  to  why  this  Convention  has 
been  called,  and  some  have  said  it  would  not  have  been  called 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  license  question.  Let  me  call  to 
your  attention  one  reason  why  this  Convention  was  called.  If 
you  will  turn  to  the  Eepublican  platform  of  the  last  campaign 
you  will  find  it  says:  "There  should  be  a  Constitutional  Con- 
vention called  to  deal  with  taxation,"  which  we  have  disposed 
of;  "representation,"  which  we  have  discussed;  "and  future 
mode  of  amending  the  Constitution."  This  third  matter  we 
have  not  considered  in  this  Convention.  Talking  with  Profes- 
sor Colby  of  Dartmouth,  who  is  good  authority  upon  constitu- 
tional law,  who  has  given  more  study  to  it  than  anyone  else, 
in  whom  we  all  have  confidence,— I  was  told  within  a  few  days 
that  he  considered  the  most  important  question,  except  pos- 
sibly taxation,  was  the  question  of  the  future  mode  of  amend- 
ing the  Constitution.  When  coming  to  Concord  yesterday,  at 
the  station,  I  saw  a  former  attorney-general  of  Massachusetts, 
a  man  who  stands  high  as  a  public-minded  man,  and  who  is 
not  a  revolutionist.  He  said,  "What  are  you  considering  at 
the  Convention?"  Then  he  remarked,  "There  is  just  one  thing 
above  all  that  you  ought  to  consider,  that  is,  the  future  mode 


448     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  amending  your  Constitution;  you  ought  to  make  it  approval 
by  two  successive  sessions  of  the  legislature  by  majority  vote, 
and  ratification  by  the  people."  I  said,  "I  am  afraid  our  con- 
servative friends  are  against  it."  He  said,  "That  is  funny;  1 
am  conservative,"  and  went  on  to  say,  "Now,  if  they  would 
leave  it  to  the  legislature  to  submit  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution, as  in  these  resolutions,  people  would  consider  the 
questions  one  at  a  time,  as  the  questions  came  along.  There 
would  be  more  deliberation,  each  would  be  considered  more  on 
its  merit,  and  the  Constitution  would  be  gradually  amended." 
Some  one  says,  "Why  do  we  need  the  change?"  If  you  will 
turn  to  page  855  in  the  Journal  of  the  last  Convention,  you 
will  find  a  table  showing  that  every  single  state  of  the  forty- 
six  in  the  Union,  at  that  time, — and  I  am  not  sure  how  New 
Mexico  did  leave  her  future  mode  of  amendment, — I  think  every 
state  except  ours  provides  that  the  legislature  shall  have  thfi 
power  to  submit  amendments  to  the  Constitution.  Many  of 
these  states  formerly  had  just  the  system  we  have,  but  all 
have  found  from  experience,  and  from  the  experience  of  other 
states,  that  it  is  wiser,  more  conservative  and  better  to  give 
this  power  to  the  legislature.  Now,  some  say  that  it  is  not 
a  good  thing,  that  Conventions  are  wiser  than  the  legislatures. 
Why,  of  course,  this  Convention  is;  this  is  a  very  wise  Conven- 
tion. I  may  disagree  or  agree  with  the  results  of  this  Conven- 
tion, but  I  am  proud  to  be  a  member  of  it.  It  is  a  body  of 
good,  strong,  able  men  that  mean  well,  and  I  think  we  should 
keep  up  with  the  procession  of  our  sister  states  in  this  mat- 
ter. I  think  we  should  give  two  successive  legislatures  the 
opportunity  to  propose  amendments.  If  you  will  look  over  the 
history  of  the  Conventions,  you  will  see  in  this  they  were  not 
as  wise  as  we  might  have  hoped.  The  Convention  of  1792  sub- 
mitted seventy-odd  questions,  and  they  were  submitted  in  such 
shape  that  when  some  were  ratified  and  some  not,  they  had 
to  reassemble  and  go  over  the  work  again.  On  reassembling, 
they  submitted  three  questions,  and  one  of  them  passed,  and 
the  second  one  was  one  similar  to  the  resolution  we  are  now 
discussing,  and  that  only  lacked  a  few  hundred  votes  of  being 
ratified,  and  that  was  more  than  sixty  years  ago.  I  venture  to 
say  it  would  not  be  strange  if  every  one  of  the  resolutions  we 
submit  are  defeated,  yet  the  public  good  and  the  public  wel- 
fare may  demand  there  be  some  change  in  the  Constitution 
soon,  and  the  only  way  any  amendment  can  be  submitted  for 
some  years  is  by  a  Constitutional  Convention  like  this,  costing 
something  like  $25,000,  and  then  we  shall  have  a  lot  of  ques- 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  449 

tions,  and  possibly  most  of  them  will  be  voted  down  again, 
because,  when  you  submit  a  lot  of  questions,  it  is  not  easy  to 
carry  those  that  ought  to  be  carried.  We  are  very  foolish  if 
we  do  not  gain  something  and  learn  something  by  the  experi- 
ence of  our  sister  states.  I  say  this  is  a  reasonable  and  con- 
servative amendment,  and  would  improve  our  Constitution,  mak- 
ing it  possible,  as  time  goes  on  and  new  public  questions  arise, 
to  gradually  fit  our  Constitution  to  the  times.  This  resolution 
submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Cavanaugh, 
ought  to  be  adopted  hj  us.  Now,  some  one  says  that  legis- 
latures will  be  continually  tinkering  with  our  Constitution, 
that  many  will  try  to  introduce  amendments  every  time  that 
the  legislature  meets.  But  let  us  see.  They  must  go  to  the 
Committees  of  the  legislature,  in  both  House  and  Senate.  The 
Committee  on  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  will  naturally 
be  a  conservative  and  strong  Committee;  undoubtedly  they  will 
consider  carefully  the  questions.  Any  resolution  must  pass  the 
House  and  then  go  to  the  Senate, — and  can  you  think  of  any- 
thing very  radical  passing  two  successive  Senates  of  New 
Hampshire?  It  must  then  go  on  to  the  next  session  two  years 
later,  and  then  pass  the  House  and  the  Senate  again,  and  then 
go  to  the  people  and  be  ratified  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  So,  Mr. 
Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  hope  you  will  give  this  matter 
xjareful  consideration.  There  are  others  here  who  want  to  ex- 
press their  sentiments  on  the  matter,  and  I  hope  you  will  give 
this  question  the  consideration  that  the  public  good  demands. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  MancJiester. — As  the  gentleman  from  Milford 
has  so  gracefully  yielded  consideration  of  his  resolution  in 
favor  of  mine,  and  I  presume  the  same  thing  applies  to  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  I  wish  to  say  only  a  word  or  two  on 
the  subject,  for  the  reason  that  we  are  approaching  a  period  in 
our  deliberations  when  the  members  do  not  care  to  listen  to 
lengthy  arguments.  I  think  this  matter  is  very  plain.  One 
of  the  provisions  of  our  Constitution  is  that  every  seven  years 
the  sense  of  the  voters  of  this  state  shall  be  taken  upon  the 
question  of  whether  or  not  a  Convention  shall  be  called.  I 
don't  remember  just  now  how  many  have  been  called. 

Now,  the  resolution  which  I  have  introduced  was  introduced 
at  the  request  of  quite  a  number  of  people  from  different  sec- 
tions of  this  state,  and  I  believe  it  is  one  which  is  desired  by 
the  people  of  our  state.  It  provides  that  any  proposed  amend- 
ment must  run  the  gauntlet  of  two  successive  sessions  of  the 
legislature  and  must  receive  in  these  two  sessions  a  majority 
vote  before  it  is  submitted  to  the  people,  and,  being  submitted 


450     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

to  the  people,  it  must  get  the  same  percentage  of  votes  to  ratify 
as  is  now  required  for  any  amendment  that  may  be  submitted 
by  us.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  nothing  radical  in  this 
proposed  resolution;  it  is  quite  conservative  when  we  consider 
the  situation  that  we  are  in.  We  have  been  here  three  weeks 
and  we  are  planning  to  get  through  next  Saturday.  Now, 
speaking  for  myself,  and  I  presume  I  might  have  been  as  well 
informed  as  the  average  member,  I  came  here  with  the  gen- 
eral idea  that  there  would  be  only  two  or  three  subjects  offered 
for  our  consideration.  Of  course,  I  was  unable  to  know  just 
what  resolutions  would  be  presented.  We  come  here,  we  spend 
a  very  short  three  weeks,  we  have  a  large  number  of  resolu- 
tions upon  very  important  subjects  submitted  to  us,  many  of 
whom  are  serving  our  first  term  in  a  Constitutional  Convention, 
and  we  are  called  upon  in  that  short  time  to  act  intelligently 
and  wisely,  and  for  the  best  interests  of  our  constituents.  Now, 
I  claim,  as  a  fornafer  member  of  legislatures  of  this  state,  that 
the  make-up  of  this  body  is  largely  the  same  as  the  make-up 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  Senate.  Therefore,  I  think 
that,  generally  speaking,  we  will  have  the  benefit  of  the  con- 
sideration of  the  matters  submitted  to  the  Convention  by  about 
that  class  of  men.  Suppose  some  amendment  is  introduced  in 
the  legislature  and  secures  the  necessary-  majority  vote;  it  will 
be  necessary  to  have  the  same  matter  come  up  at  the  next 
session  of  the  legislature.  It  will  be  a  matter  which  will  be 
before  the  people  at  the  next  election.  The  senators  and  rep- 
resentatives elected  to  the  next  legislature  will  have  a  chance 
to  hear  those  matters  discussed;  they  will  come  to  that  next 
session  of  the  legislature  with  a  knowledge  of  the  good  and  the 
bad  features  of  the  proposed  amendment,  and  in  that  way  have 
an  advantage  over  the  present  method.  Now,  that,  to  me.  Gen- 
tlemen, is  one  of  the  most  important  provisions  of  this  resolu- 
tion, to  have  an  interval  of  two  years  between  two  successive 
sessions  of  our  legislature  elapse,  giving  the  people  of  the  state, 
and  giving  the  men  who  will  become  members  of  the  legis- 
lature, ample  time  to  know  what  amendments  have  been  sub- 
mitted, and  so  they  may  be  able  to  come  to  the  legislature  pre- 
pared to  act  upon  them  more  intelligently  than  the  men  who 
are  called  once  in  ten  or  twelve  years,  and  asked  to  do  the 
same  kind  of  work  in  the  short  period  of  three  weeks.  That 
is  about  all  I  have  to  say,  especially  at  this  time,  unless  some- 
thing is  suggested  that  T  think  may  require  some  answer. 

Mr.  Eositman  of  Exefer.—Th\s  matter  of  the  way  to  amend  the 
Constitution  has  been  brought  up  several  times  before.     It  was 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  451 

under  consideration  at  the  last  Constitutional  Convention,  ten 
years  ago.     The  matter  was  then  thoroughly  threshed  out  be- 
fore  the   Convention.     Professor   Colby,  whose   name  has   been 
used  here,  was   in  attendance   before  the   Committee,   and  the 
matter  was   fully    heard,    and,   as  a  result  of   that   hearing,   a 
resolution  was  presented  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  the  way 
suggested   at   this   time;    but  it  was  not   adopted.     Now,  I  am 
surprised  at  the  attitude  of  some  gentlemen  in  the  Convention. 
One   gentleman   said  that  we  would  have  to  be   more   careful 
because,   if   we   were   not,   there    would   be    a    Convention   that 
would  tear  this  old  Constitution  all  to  pieces,  and  that  remark 
seemed  to  meet  with  a  good  deal  of  applause.     Now,  I  am  very 
much  in  favor  of  the  old  Constitution,  which  has  served  us  well 
for   one  hundred   and   twenty   years.     It  has    been   amended   a 
few   times   and  in   only  a  very  few  particulars,  which,   to   my 
mind,   shows  the  value  of  that  instrument.     We  have  heard  a 
good  deal  about  what  they  do  in  California,  and  what  they  do 
in  Oregon,  and  what  they  do  in  various  other  states, — Colorado 
and  the  state  of  Maine, — and  we  are  assured  we  are  way  be- 
hind the  times  because  we  don't  adopt  the  same  method  they 
have  adopted  in  those  states  to  amend  the  Constitution,     They 
say   we    are   not  keeping  up  in   the   procession.     I   am   a   New 
Hampshire  man,  and,  as  a  man  once  said,  "I  w^as  always  born 
in  New  Hampshire."     I  think  a  good  deal  of  New  Hampshire  in- 
stitutions and  of  the  New  Hampshire  Constitution,  and  I  should 
be  very  sorry  to  adopt  any  plan  or  method  which  would  oper- 
ate in  any  way  to  injure  that  instrument.     Now,  it  is  suggested 
that    amendments    to   the   Constitution   be   made   by   the    legis- 
lature, and  it  is  claimed  the  legislature  can  give  more  atten- 
tion to  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  than  a  Convention 
called  especially  for  that  purpose,  and  it  is  intimated  that  the 
legislature    would    probably    be    composed    of   men    who    would 
perhaps,    be    better    adapted    to    consider    the   questions    which 
would  come  up  before  them.     I  was  criticised  for  a  remark  I 
made  in  the  Convention  ten  years  ago,  to  the  effect  that,  in  my 
judgment,   the   Convention    then   present   was    made   up    of   an 
abler  set  of  men,  as  a  whole,  than  the  legislatures  we  had  had 
for   several   years   preceding  that  time.     Now,  then,  I   did  not 
mean   to   speak  in   disparitj^   of  the  legislatures  that  had   pre- 
ceded  the    Constitutional   Convention.     I   think   it   is    generally 
understood  in  New  Hampshire,  however,  that,  in  selecting  dele- 
gates  to   come   to    a    Constitutional   Convention,   good  men    are 
picked  out.    We  all  agree  to  that  fact.     We  won't  have  to  go 
out  of  the  Convention  to  prove  it.     We  will  admit  we  are  good 


452     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

men.  If  that  is  so,  why  should  we  undertake  to  turn  over  to 
another  body  of  men  the  matters  that  are  now  to  be  consid- 
ered by  a  Convention?  Why,  the  legislature  is  a  partisan  body, 
and,  every  time  the  legislature  meet,  the  party  in  power  would 
think  the  Constitution  ought  to  be  fixed  in  some  wa3\  It  is 
always  natural  to  promote  the  interests  of  your  party  by  leg- 
islation, and,  if  the  Constitution  stood  in  the  way,  the  legislature 
would  amend  the  Constitution;  they  would  not  hesitate  to 
make  partisan  amendments.  Suppose  you  have  the  legislature 
do  this,  suppose  that  is  so,  you  would  get  an  amendment 
through  in  four  years  on  the  plan  that  is  now  suggested.  Under 
the  present  Constitution  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  people 
to  call  a  Convention  once  in  seven  years,  or  as  often  as  the 
people  see  fit.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  believe  we  want 
i)0  meet  and  tinker  with  the  Constitution  oftener  than  once  in 
seven  years?  The  Constitution  is  not  a  bundle  of  statute  laws. 
It  is  the  fundamental  organic  law  upon  which  all  the  laws  of 
the  state  are  based.  We  cannot  afford  to  have  that  fundamental 
organic  law  changed  practically  as  often  as  the  statute  laws  of 
the  state.  We  do  not  want  any  such  remedy  as  that  to  amend 
this  instrument.  I  am  opposed  to  any  suggestion  of  that  kind. 
I  opposed  it  ten  years  ago.  I  am  opposed  to  it  now.  I  think 
the  facilities  for  amending  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire 
are  good  enough,  and  they  are  ample  enough.  If  I  was  going 
to  make  any  suggestion,  I  would  make  it  even  harder  to  amend 
the  Cfonstitution  than  it  is  today. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
now  rise,  report  progress  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  whom  were  referred  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  future 
mode  of  amending  the  Constitution,  report  progress  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  leave  granted. 


Thuksday,  June  20,  1912.  453 

COM^nTTEE  EeFOET. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  58,  Re- 
lating to  Taxation,  having  considered  the  same,  report  the 
same,  with  the  recommendation  that  the  Convention  agree 
to  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — The  Committee  asked  to  have  this 
amendment  recommitted,  in  order  that  the  position  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  one  simple  question  might  be  thoroughly  understood 
in  this  Convention.  The  Committee  is  unanimous  in  its  repoit, 
except  in  that  clause  in  which  provision  is  made  giving  the  leg- 
islature authority  and  power  to  Impose  and  levy  taxes  on  in- 
comes from  stock  of  foreign  corporations.  A  majority  of  the 
Committee  believed  in  reporting  it  with  the  term,  "foreign  cor- 
porations." A  minority  of  the  Committee  desired,  and  will  of- 
fer on  the  floor  of  this  House,  an  amendment  striking  out  the 
word,  "foreign,"  so  that  the  amendment  will  read  and  cover 
the  stock  of  both  domestic  and  foreign  corporations.  If  the 
gentleman  from  Landaff  is  in  the  House,  he  will  offer  that 
amendment  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff  moved  to  amend  by  striking  out 
the  word,  "foreign,"  wherever  it  appears. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Stevens 
of  Landaff  to  Resolution  No.  58,  Relating  to  Taxation, — 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Lcmdaff. — Just  a  word  in  explanation  of  this 
amendment.  I  offer  it  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  I 
believe  those  two  words  should  be  stricken  out  because  the 
instructions  of  this  Convention  to  the  Committee  were  to  bring 
in  an  amendment  that  would  allow  the  taxation  of  the  incomes 
from  intangibles.  It  was  not  limited  to  the  income  from  stocks 
of  foreign  corporations,  and  I  believe  that  our  report  should 
follow  the  instructions  of  this  Convention.  And,  in  the  second 
place,  I  am  personally  in  favor  of  giving  the  legislature  power 
to  tax  the  income  from  all  stocks  and  intangibles,  irrespective 
of  whether  they  are  foreign  or  local  corporations. 


454     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Carter  of  Lebanon. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  object  to  this  amendment  that  the  gentleman 
from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  has  offered,  for  three  reasons.  It 
seems  to  me  there  is  some  doubt  about  what  intangibles  are. 
If  we  adopt  this  amendment  of  Mr.  Stevens,  then  the  legislature 
can  tax  the  corporations  of  this  state.  Now,  one  reason  why 
they  should  not  be  taxed, — why  there  should  not  be  any  income 
tax  from  the  corporations  of  this  state, — is  because  the  cor- 
porations already  pay  a  tax,  unless  they  are  exempted  for  a 
short  time,  and  if  we  impose  this  income  tax  upon  them, — they 
pay  the  regular  tax,  as  on  other  property;  they  can  conceal 
nothing;  they  have  their  plant,  and  they  pay  their  regular 
tax, — and  they  also  pay  a  government  tax,  and  if  this  tax  Is 
imposed  they  will  pay  a  triple  tax.  I  can  distinguish  this  dif- 
ference between  the  bonds  of  a  company  and  the  stock.  If 
a  man  buys  a  bond  of  a  corporation,  he  should  satisfy  himself 
that  the  property  will  sell  for  enough  to  pay  the  bond,  but  he 
takes  no  risk.  Whereas,  if  he  takes  the  stock,  he  takes  the  risk 
of  the  business.  And  there  is  another  reason  why  I  should  ob- 
ject to  this,  and  that  has  been  talked  up  in  the  Committee. 
Those  who  are  engaged  in  manufacturing  business,  if  as  a  part- 
nership, pay  no  income  tax,  whereas,  if  their  business  is  run 
as  a  corporation,  then  they  would  have  to  pay  this  tax,  and 
that  certainly  would  not  be  a  fair  proposition;  and  I  am  sure 
you.  Gentlemen,  would  agree  with  me  in  this  matter. 

I  haven't  anything  to  say  about  foreign  corporations  at  this 
time.  I  do  believe  we  make  a  mistake  in  imposing  this  income 
tax  upon  the  local  corporations  of  New  Hampshire.  If  we  can 
do  anything  to  encourage  manufacturing  in  our  state,  we  should 
do  it,  and  we  should  offer  every  inducement  to  manufacturers 
out  of  the  state  to  come  here  to  engage  in  manufacturing,  and 
if  they  know  that  they  have  to  pay  a  regular  tax,  the  govern- 
ment tax,  and  state  income  tax,  do  you  think  they  will  locate 
in  New  Hampshire? 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashita. — Mr.  President,  by  striking  out  the 
word,  "foreign,"  it  simply  places  the  stocks  of  our  own  cor- 
porations,— that  is,  the  home  corporations  referring  to  New 
Hampshire, — on  the  same  basis  that  the  stock  of  corpora- 
tions in  Massachusetts,  Maine,  Vermont  or  Pennsylvania  is. 
It  seems  to  me,  so  far  as  the  constitutional  proposition  Is 
concerned,  that  it  is  fair,  equitable  and  right.  In  other 
words,  the  stock  of  any  corporation,  whether  the  corporation 
is  located  in  Concord,  N.  H.,  or  in  Lowell,  Mass.,  or  in  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.,  should  stand  upon  the  same  basis  for  taxation. 
Of  course,  the  legislature  in  its  wisdom  can  classify,  under  this 


Thuksday,  June  20,  1912.  455 

provision,  the  stocks  of  the  home  and  foreign  corporations. 
It  seems  to  me  we  should  not  tie  or  limit  the  powers  of  the 
legislature  bj^  restricting  it  to  foreign  corporations.  I  think  a 
corporation  is  a  corporation  and  they  should  all  stand  alike, 
so  that  the  legislature  can  deal  with  them  all  alike,  that  is, 
the  stocks  that  may  be  held  by  our  citizens,  or  by  corporations 
in  this  state.  I  do  recognize  that  there  is  force  to  the  sugges- 
tions made  by  the  gentleman  from  Lebanon,  Mr.  Carter,  if  ap- 
plied to  legislation.  In  other  words,  most  of  the  suggestions  he 
has  made  here  today  would  appeal  to  me  if  I  was  voting  on  a 
statute  relating  to  taxation  of  these  stocks,  in  the  legislature. 
I  am  not  sure  but  I  should  agree  with  him  fully  on  that  propo- 
sition, because  I,  like  my  friend  from  Exeter,  was  born  in  New 
Hampshire.  I  don't  suppose  I  shall  ever  get  out  of  it;  I  believe 
in  taking  care  of  our  own.  I  think,  if  any  favor  in  taxation 
of  stocks  is  to  be  made,  it  should  be  made  in  favor  of  our 
home  industries,  but  that  does  not  interest  us  here  at  this  time. 
The  question  is  whether  we  shall  give  the  legislature  the  power 
to  deal  with  home  corporations,  or  foreign  corporations,  rela- 
tive to  the  imposition  of  an  income  tax  upon  all  stocks  alike, 
and  I  hope  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Stevens  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Whittemore  of  Dover. — Mr.  President,  I  did  not  intend  to 
discuss  this  proposition,  but  I  do  feel  that,  as  the  subject  is  ona 
that  concerns  the  citizens  of  New  Hampshire,  it  should  be  made 
plain  to  the  Convention  what  the  effect  of  this  amendment, 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  if  adopted, 
would  be. 

I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  man  in  this  Convention  who 
favors  a  double  tax  on  local  enterprises,  and,  if  this  amend- 
ment should  be  adopted,  then  our  legislature  will  have  au- 
thority to  put  a  double  tax  on  ever^^  business  enterprise  located 
within  this  state  that  is  incorporated  under  our  New  Hamp- 
shire laws.  The  object  of  the  wording,  as  it  is  left  in  the  reso- 
lution introduced  by  the  Committee,  is  to  exempt  stock  owned 
by  citizens  of  New  Hampshire,  in  a  New  Hampshire  enterprise, 
so  as  to  prevent  a  double  tax  on  our  local  industries,  as  the 
present  law  taxes  all  such  property  at  its  full  value.  Why 
should  we  give  the  legislature  authority  to  tax  citizens  of  New 
Hampshire  again,  by  reason  of  their  ownership  in  the  stock 
of  such   corporation? 

To  make  the  question,  and  my  meaning,  plain  to  you,  1  will 
give  you  an  illustration.  In  the  city  of  Dover  we  have  citi- 
zens engaged  in  the  maufacture  of  shoes,  and,  for  the  conveni- 
ence of  carrying  on  their  business,  they  have  incorporated  the 


456     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

same,  under  our  New  Hampshire  laws.  There  are  several 
reasons  for  this,  one  reason  being-  that  it  is  more  convenient  to 
keep  the  business  running  in  case  of  the  death  of  any  stock- 
holder, as  the  interest  is  represented  by  the  stock,  which  can 
be  transferred  without  interfering-  with  the  management  of 
the  same. 

We  also  have,  in  the  city  of  Dover,  a  large  industry  in  the 
manufacturing  of  belting,  etc.  The  owners  of  <this  factory  have 
not  incorporated  and  are  conducting  the  business  as  a  part- 
nership. Now,  you  will  readily  see  that  if  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  is  adopted, 
the  owners  of  the  manufacturing  plant  that  is  incorporated 
will  be  compelled  to  pay  a  tax  upon  the  income  of  the  same, 
in  addition  to  the  regular  tax  that  is  now  paid  upon  the  prop- 
erty of  the  concern,  while  the  owners  of  the  other  factory, 
managed  under  the  form  of  a  partnership,  will  have  to  pay  no 
tax  upon  the  income  derived  from  operating  their  plant. 

Now,  I  fail  to  see  why  we  should  enact  an  amendment  that 
would  allow  the  legislature  to  doubly  tax  any  New  Hampshire 
enterprise.  Such  a  step  would  mean  that  any  of  you  could  not 
incorporate  your  business  without  subjecting  yourselves  ta 
this  double  taxation.  If  we  are  to  adopt  an  income  tax,  a  tax 
that  includes  every  class  of  business,  every  class  of  income,  re- 
gardless of  its  source,  then  my  objection  would  not  obtain,  but 
it  seems  to  me  that  here  is  an  attempt  to  attack  the  income 
derived  from  one  source  alone,  and  that  source  the  income  from 
a  New  Hampshire  corporation. 

We  reach  the  holder  of  stock  in  foreign  corporations  under 
the  resolution  as  reported  by  the  Committee,  and  it  is  the 
only  tax  that  we  place  upon  the  owners  of  such  stock,  as  the 
property  of  the  foreign  corporation  is  outside  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  cannot  be  reached  by  our  taxation  laws.  The  state 
of  New  Hampshire  gets  no  tax  from  this  class  of  stock,  at  the 
present  time.  Let  us  not  attempt  to  give  the  legislature  au- 
thority to  burden  the  citizens  of  New  Hampshire  by  a  double 
taxation  on  her  local  enterprises. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — I^ould  like  to  make  an  inquiry. 

Mr.  LyforcD  of  Concord. — Perhaps  I  will  answer  your  inquiry 
if  you  will  allow  me  to  make  this  simple  statement,  so  that 
every  member  may  understand  the  significance  of  this  motion. 
The  word,  "foreign,"  there  limits  the  tax  on  incomes  to  foreign 
corporations,  so  that  the  legislature  is  not  granted  power  to  tax 
incomes  of  domestic  corporations.  You  strike  out  the  word, 
"foreign,"  and  you  give  the  power  to  the  legislature  to  tax  the 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  45  T 

incomes  of  either  domestic  or  foreign  corporations.  Does  thai 
make  it  clear? 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — I  would  like  to  ask  just  one  ques- 
tion. What  does  "foreign"  corporations  mean?  If  I  am  doings 
business  in  New  Hampshire,  and  should  go  to  Maine  and  or- 
ganize in  Maine,  is  that  a  foreign  corporation? 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Conwrd. — I  understand  it  is. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — I  hope  the  amendment  will  not  pre- 
vail. I  think  we  ought  to  encourage  people  to  invest  money  in 
New^  Hampshire,  in  home  corporations. 

Mr.  Bo^nton  of  Portsinvouth. — One  feature  about  this  that  they 
have  not  examined  very  closely:  Now,  in  relation  to  taxing  in- 
comes, the  taxation  on  local  corporations,  the  corporations 
themselves  pay  the  taxes,  but  if  the  savings  bank  owned  the 
stock  of  that  corporation,  they  now  pay  a  tax  on  that  stock  the 
second  time.  The  individuals  are  placed  on  the  same  basis  as 
savings  banks  by  cutting  out  the  word,  "foreign." 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Broderick  of  Manchester  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  73  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  159  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  amend- 
ment of  Mr.  Stevens  was  not  adopted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee  that  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention, — 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  PeUiam. — I  rise  to  make  an  inquiry.  I  have  had 
a  little  experience  in  taxation,  and  the  people  of  my  section 
have  had  trouble  with  it.  We  live  in  a  border  town.  Quite  an 
amount  of  the  money  of  the  town  is  in  the  savings  banks  in 
Massachusetts.  Some  thirty  years  ago  there  were  inventory 
blanks  issued  and  money  at  interest  was  taxed,  and  our  people 
paid  the  tax  one  year.  Then  it  came  before  the  Courts,  and  it 
was  decided  it  was  double  taxation;  and  I  would  like  to  inquire 
whether  this  is  intended  to  stop  the  depositing  in  Massachu- 
setts, or  whether  it  is  a  club  in  the  hands  of  the  savings  banks 
to  drive  that  money  into  New  Hampshire  from  Massachusetts. 
Of  course,  we  understand  why  it  is  there.  The  people  there 
can  get  four  percent  for  their  deposits.     The  banks  in  Nashua 


458    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

pay  three  percent.  There  was  a  while  they  didn't  pay  any- 
thing, didn't  even  pay  the  full  amount  of  the  principal,  and 
a  good  many  of  the  depositors  that  formerly  deposited  -n 
Nashua  go  to  Lowell.  They  have  not  lost  anything  there,  and 
they  do  not  have  to  wait  fifteen  years  to  get  the  principal 
of  their  money,  as  they  did  in  Nashua.  The  banks  in  Nashua 
now,  under  the  management  they  have,  are  a  good  deal  better. 
We  would  like  it  so  we  could  keep  our  money  where  it  would 
draw  four  percent.  We  are  willing  to  pay  on  the  income.  If 
this  is  a  club  we  want  to  know  it. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord. — Mr.  Chairman,  there  were  twenty 
members  on  the  Committee  to  whom  were  referred  the  different 
bills  on  taxation.  This  resolution  which  has  been  reported  is 
the  combined  judgment,  the  best  judgment  of  that  Committee. 
There  has  been  no  club  introduced  into  it.  No  one  represent- 
ing a  savings  bank  in  New  Hampshire  has  been  here  before  the 
Committee,  or  suggested  that  they  wanted  the  money  which 
men  deposit  in  Massachusetts  banks.  The  purpose  of  the  Com- 
mittee was,  and  is,  that  we  submit  a  resolution  to  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire,  which  we  are  in  hopes  they  will  adopt. 
The  savings  banks  of  New  Hampshire  at  the  present  time  pay 
three  fourths  of  one  percent  tax  on  the  greater  portion  of  their 
deposits.  There  are  some  exemptions,  and  the  exemptions 
probably  would  reduce  the  savings  banks  tax  to  one  half  of 
one  percent.  Now,  the  purpose  of  this  amendment  is  that 
everybody  who  has  money  at  interest  shall  stand  the  same  in 
New  Hampshire  as  the  men  whose  money  is  in  the  savings  bank; 
that  if  a  man  owns  Pennsylvania  Railroad  stock,  or  New  York 
Central  Railroad  stock,  or  the  Pullman  Company  stock,  he  shall 
contribute  his  share  to  the  taxes  of  New  Hampshire,  at  least 
one  half  of  one  percent,  or  equal  to  the  savings  bank  tax.  For 
illustration,  suppose  I  own  $50,000  of  real  estate  that  is  taxed; 
my  neighbor  owns  $50,000  in  the  Pullman  Company  stock,  and 
he  is  not  taxed;  or,  in  other  words,  I  am  paying' for  my  neigh- 
bor's streets,  his  lights,  his  sidewalks,  and  his  property  is  ex- 
empt from  taxation.  We  want  to  make  taxes  as  equal  as  pos- 
sible. Now,  whether  an  investment  in  Massachusetts  savings 
banks  by  some  one  on  the  border  of  this  state  is  as  good  as 
some  investment  in  this  state,  we  have  not  attempted  to  settle. 
You  cannot  make  a  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  will 
cover  all  the  details  of  legislation.  We  can  submit  a  general 
provision,  which  will  allow  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  and 
their  property,  to  be  taxed  as  nearly  equally  as  possible,  and 
that  is  all  we  want.     Now,  I  will  repeat,  there  were  no  savings 


Thursday,  JuiNE  20,  1912.  459 

banks  represented  before  us.  It  was  never  suggested  that  we 
attempt  to  drive  the  public  to  invest  their  money  in  New  Hamp- 
shire savings  banks.  The  people  are  at  liberty  to  put  their 
money  where  they  please;  but  we  do  ask  that  every  man  shall 
bear  a  fair  proportion  of  the  taxes  of  this  state,  and  pay  for 
his  part  of  the  benefits  which  he  receives  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  state,  whether  his  property  is  in  railroad  stock, 
bonds  or  any  other  evidences  of  debt.  This  resolution  had  the 
support  of  Judge  Mitchell,  that  is,  the  assistance  of  Judge 
Mitchell,  and  other  gentlemen  who  were  interested  came  in 
before  us,  and  the  resolution  is  the  combined  judgment  of  the 
Committee.  Of  course,  you  can  amend  it,  if  you  see  fit,  but  we 
want  to  go  before  the  people  with  some  amendment  which  will 
commend  itself  to  the  people,  and  have  a  chance  of  ratification. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Berlin. — I  would  like  to  inquire  of  some  mem- 
ber of  the  Convention  whether  this  amendment  is  broad  enough 
to  include  all  of  the  income  of  corporations.  I  have  the  im- 
pression it  does  not,  but  includes  for  the  purpose  of  taxation 
only  the  income  received  from  stock  in  foreign  corporations. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  are  other  corporations  that 
should  be  included.  I  refer  to  the  income  received  by  stock- 
holders in  national  banks.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  owners  of 
this  class  of  property  have  an  easy  method  of  avoiding  tax- 
ation. I  suppose  that  a  national  bank  is  a  domestic  corpora- 
tion. Now,  the  stock  in  national  banks,  under  the  laws  of  this 
state,  is  treated  as  so  much  cash  on  hand.  Consequently  its 
value  for  the  purposes  of  taxation  can  be  offset  by  any  out- 
standing indebtedness  which  the  owners  of  it  may  owe  on  the 
first  day  of  April,  so  that  if  a  man  is  owing  any  debts  on 
the  first  day  of  April,  and  a  large  number  of  this  claTss  of  prop- 
erty-owners apparently  always  do,  they  can  set  off  the  Amount 
of  their  indebtedness  against  the  value  of  their  bank  stock,  and 
they  always  have  enough  of  the  latter  on  hand  to  more  than 
balance  the  former,  and  in  that  way,  under  the  color  of  law, 
avoid  payment  of  taxes  on  property  that  is  often  paying  them 
as  high  as  eight,  ten  and  sometimes  twelve  percent. 

I  would  like  to  have  the  amendment  broad  enough  to  include 
the  income  derived  from  this  class  of  property. 

Mr.  Lijford  of  Concord. — Isn't  that  a  legislative  function,  some- 
thing that  the  legislature  itself  can  correct?  Doesn't  the  gen- 
tleman understand  that  he  could  go  to  the  legislature  today 
and  tax  national  bank  stock  differently  from  what  it  is  taxed? 

Mr.  SulUvwi  of  Berlin. — I  understand  it  is  taxed  today. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Cannot  the  legislature  tax  it  differ- 
ently? 


460    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Berlin. — I  think  tfie  only  way  to  reach' it  is  by 
income  tax. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord. — I  want  to  make  a  suggestion,  that  na- 
tional banks  are  not  domestic  corporations,  and  the  income 
received  from  the  stock  of  national  banks  could  be  taxed  under 
this  amendment,  and  I  don't  see  that  we  require  any  change  on 
that  score. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Berlin. — That  is  all  right  if  it  is. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebwok. — I  want  to  make  just  one  suggestion 
here.  I  see  nothing  in  this  amendment  that  would  allow  any 
taxation  on  income  of  the  domestic  corporation  whose  property 
is  substantially  all  located  outside  of  the  state.  If  the  property 
is  all  located  outside  of  the  state,  the  state  would  receive  no 
income,  and  could  impose  no  tax  on  that  property,  and  neither 
could  it  impose  any  tax  on  the  income  of  the  stock  that  is  held 
in  this  state.     That  is  the  objection  I  make  to  it. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — In  answer  to  the  gentleman  from 
Colebrook,  I  would  say,  that  the  physical  property  of  such  cor- 
poration located  within  the  state  would  be  taxable  under  the 
general  law,  the  same  as  always  has  been  the  case,  if  I  under- 
stand this  question. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook. — I  do  not  dispute  that  at  all,  but  I 
am  speaking  in  regard  to  its  physical  property  that  is  located 
outside  of  the  state.  If  it  is  a  domestic  corporation  incor- 
porated under  the  laws  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  ita 
actual  physical  property  exists  outside  of  the  state,  or  lies 
largely  outside  of  the  state,  the  state  could  impose  no  tax,  ancT 
could  receive  no  revenue  from  it,  or  could  impose  no  tax  or 
revenue  on  the  income  of  its  stock. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — I  see  no  way  to  meet  that  situation 
except  to  adopt  the  amendment  which  I  offered,  which  was 
voted  down.  My  idea  was  that  this  matter  be  opened  up  and 
left  to  the  legislature,  and  the  legislature  could  protect  and 
encourage  home  industries  which  had  put  their  property  in 
here,  and  look  after  them  afterwards.  By  striking  out  th3 
word,  "foreign,"  they  could  get  at  such  corporations  that  take 
out  a  charter  here  and  have  their  property  somewhere  else, 
but  that  amendment  has  been  voted  down.  I  see  no  may  *to 
cover  that  particular  case  which  the  gentleman  from  Colebrook 
has  mentioned,  except  to  strike  out  the  word,  "foreign." 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — There  is  just  a  word  to  say  with  re- 
gard to  this, — the  question  of  the  gentleman  from  Colebrook. 
There  would  be  a  little  less  double  taxation.  That  is  all. 
The  taxation  of  incomes  on  stocks  is,  of  course,  double  tax- 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  461 

ation.  Now,  if  it  can  be  conceived  that  anybody  would  come  in 
ihere  and  incorporate,  having  their  property  in  Massachusetts 
or  somewhere  else,  that  property  certainly  is  taxable  there,  and 
the  persons  here  owning  the  stock  of  that  corporation  wouid 
simply  escape  double  taxation  by  so  much.  That  is  all.  This 
amendment  probably  does  not  reach  a  stockholder  of  a  do- 
mestic corporation  whose  property  is  all  somewhere  else,  but 
that  property  somewhere  else  is  being  taxed,  and  the  New 
Hampshire  holder  escapes  double  taxation  by  just  so  much. 
That  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

Mr.  Carter  of  Lebwrion. — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Colebrook  if  every  corporation  in  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, unless  specially  exempted,  which  has  inducement  to 
locate  in  some  particular  place,  is  not  taxed,  whether  the  stock 
is  owned  by  New  Hampshire  men  or  men  in  Massachusetts? 
Doesn't  the  property  pay  tax  in  every  case? 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook. — To  answer  this  question,  we  yvill  sup- 
pose there  is  a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  nine  tenths  of  its  physical  property  is 
located  outside  of  the  state.  That  property  is  all  represented 
by  stockholders,  by  individuals  in  this  state.  If  no  tax  could 
be  imposed  on  the  income  of  that  stock,  I  see  no  other  way  by 
which  that  nine  tenths  of  the  property  of  that  corporation  couid 
be  taxed  in  this  state  in  any  form,  and  it  would  contribute  no 
part  of  the  revenue  to  this  state.  That  is  the  objection  I  make 
to  that. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — The  members  of  the  Legislative  Com- 
mittee have  worked  long  and  hard  to  furnish  to  this  Conven- 
tion some  amendment  relating  to  taxation  which  would  be  sat- 
isfactory. They  have  endeavored,  since  proposing  such  an 
amendment,  to  make  plain  to  the  members  of  this  Convention 
what  it  means.  I  have  talked  with  a  dozen  members  of  this 
'Convention,  and  bright,  intelligent  men  as  they  are,  they  al- 
most with  one  accord  say  they  cannot  understand  what  all  the 
provisions  of  this  amendment  mean.  Gentlemen  have  arisen 
on  the  floor,  asking  questions  about  these  things.  I  ask  the 
gentlemen,  the  members  of  this  Convention,  if  they  think  it  is 
very  likely  that  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshirfe, 
when  a  proposition  like  this  is  proposed  to  them,  will  adopt 
any  such  thing  as  this?  The  gentleman  from  Pelham  seemed 
to  think  there  might  be  a  "joker"  hidden  in  this,  I  wonder  if 
the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  when  it  is  submitted  to  them, 
won't  wonder  if  there  is  a  "joker"  in  it  and  defeat  it.  It 
rseems  to  me   this  proposition  has  not  the   slightest  chance  of 


462     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

being  adopted   by   the   people  of  New  Hampshire,  if  sUbmittcl 
to  them. 

Mr.  Folsom  of  Dover. — This  question  of  taxation  is,  without 
doubt,  the  most  important  which  can  come  before  this  body, 
and  the  most  important  question  now  before  the  people  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire.  Let  us  go  back  to  the  principles  upon 
which  the  burden  of  taxation  is  founded.  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  declares  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal, 
and  our  Federal  Constitution  is  based  on  that  theory.  In  our 
own  Constitution,  Bill  of  Rights,  Article  1. — "All  men  are  born 
equally  free  and  independent."  These  are  in  simple  language, 
but  they  mean  mftch,  as  they  are  the  very  foundation  of  our 
republican  form  of  government.  But  with  these  guaranteed 
equal  rights  and  equal  privileges  to  all  citizens  are  imposed 
equal  restrictions  and  equal  burdens,  and  this  much  discussed 
word  "proportional"  in  that  part  of  our  Constitution  relating 
to  taxation  is  our  guaranty  of  equality  in  bearing  the  burdens 
of  our  popular  government.  A  few  days  ago  we  had  the  so- 
called  Stevens  amendment  before  this  Committee,  and  I  listened 
with  much  pleasure  and  with  great  profit  to  the  learned  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  whose  opinion  I  most  highly 
esteem,  as  he  stood  here  before  you,  Gentlemen,  and  expounded* 
the  word  "proportional."  This  word  has  been  construed  by  our 
honored  Courts  to  mean  "uniform"  or  "equal,"  and  we  should 
revere  this  word  for  the  rights  which  it  guarantees  to  us.  We 
have  already  voted  not  to  strike  out  this  word  from  the 
language  of  our  Constitution,  but  this  proposed  amendment 
does  in  effect  allow  a  system  of  taxation  that  is  not  propor- 
tional, that  is  not  uniform,  that  is  not  equal;  it  will  permit 
class  legislation  and  unjust  and  unfair  laws  to  be  passed  under 
which  we  must  live,  and  perhaps  suffer.  This  proposed  amend- 
ment, clothed  in  legal  verbiage,  is  not  likely  to  be  understood 
by  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  this  state,  and  hence  thoy 
are  not  able  to  pass  intelligently  upon  the  question.  Gentle- 
men, the  present  tax  laws  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  are 
model  ones.  Personally,  I  am  in  favor  of,  and  I  believe  that 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  will  have  ultimately  a  real  income 
tax.  We  have  here  a  government  of,  by  and  for  the  people. 
Under  that  government,  whoever  is  able  to  acquire  the  greater 
income  should  pay  larger  taxes  in  accordance  therewith.  Is 
there  anything  unfair  or  unreasonable  about  that?  This  Is 
not  accomplished  in  the  proposed  amendment,  for  this  provides 
merely  for  an  income  tax  on  intangibles.  Should  intangibles 
be  taxed  at  a  less  rate  than  tangibles?  Should  tangible  property 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  463 

be  taxed  on  its  intrinsic  value  and  intangible  property  taxed 
only  on  the  amount  of  its  income?  This  is  not  an  income  tax. 
Then,  again,  why  should  the  income  from  one  class  of  property 
be  taxed  and  the  income  from  other  classes  of  property  not? 
Is  that  proportional?  Is  there  any  reason  why,  under  the  law, 
a  J)ond,  whatever  its  interest  payment  may  be,  should  be  taxed 
$3.00  a  thousand,  and  your  house,  your  stock  in  trade,  yoar 
farm,  your  cows,  your  horses  and  all  your  other  property  be 
taxed  from  $20  to  $30  a  thousand?  Is  that  fair  and  just?  That 
is  just  what  this  proposition  means.  It  means  the  partial 
classification  of  property  for  taxation;  it  is  the  entering  wedge 
in  favor  of  a  lower  tax  for  the  rich  and  a  higher  tax  for  the 
poor.  "To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given  and  from  him  that  hath 
not  shall  be  taken  away."  For  these  reasons  I  am  entirely 
opposed  to  the  resolution  proposed  by  this  Committee,  and  I 
believe  we  are  better  off  to  leave  the  tax  question  in  exactly 
the  position  it  is  in  today. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Pefcrhoroiigli, — I  wish  to  refer  to  one  point  that 
has  not  been  touched  by  any  member  of  this  Convention.  It 
will  come  from  those  towns  and  cities  which  receive  a  tax  on 
intangibles,  which  receive  a  tax  on  money  at  interest,  which  re- 
ceive a  tax  on  bonds,  which  receive  a  tax  on  all  the  intangibles, 
as  I  understand  this  question  to  resolve  itself  into.  That  is, 
the  state  will  appoint  a  commissioner  or  tax  collectors  to  col- 
lect incomes  from  this  property.  The  tax  will  go  directly  into 
the  state  treasury;  it  will  not  go  to  any  town;  it  will  not  go  to 
any  citj^  but  will  go  directly  into  the  state  treasury,  and  I 
think  we  may  fear  greater  opposition  from  that  source  than 
any  other.  I  believe  that  the  money  that  goes  into  the  state 
ti*easury  more  than  is  needed  is  simply  a  bid  for  a  commission 
and  for  the  extension  of  other  things  to  draw  the  money  out. 
Where  it  goes  into  the  treasury,  the  state  treasury,  more  than 
is  needed,  there  will  be  a  tendency  to  draw  it  out.  If  it  goes 
out  to  the  towns  and  cities,  they  can  expend  it  for  themselves. 
They  will  have  control  over  it.  Individuals  own  the  property 
that  is  taxed;  the  property  should  belong,  or  the  tax  upon  it 
should  belong,  to  the  towns  or  cities  where  those  persons 
resido. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — If  the  Convention  will  pardon  me  a 
few  moments,  I  will  try  to  explain  this  amendment.  Before 
I  do,  I  want  to  reply  to  an  implication  made  here  that  there 
is  some  joker  in  it.  Honestly  and  truly,  if  there  is,  I  am  not 
bright  enough  to  find  it,  nor  has  this  Committee,  and  Mr. 
Stevens  has  acted  in  the  Committee.     If  there  were  any  joker 


464    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

in  it  he  would  have  found  it  out.  He  disagreed  with,  us  on  for- 
eign stock,  and  that  was  the  only  joker — if  that  was  a  joker. 
The  gentleman  from  Dover  has  said  this  is  a  paper  of  legal 
verbiage.  It  is  merely  a  repetition  of  the  Constitution  as  it  is' 
now,  with  the  exception  of  the  thirteen  lines  of  the  amend- 
ment. You  need  not  be  scared  by  the  size  of  this,  because  it 
is  what  has  existed  for  years. 

Now  for  the  amendment — '^but  the  General  Court  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax 
growing  wood  and  timber."  That  seems  to  be  as  plain  as  any- 
thing can  be.  "Growdng  wood  and  timber,"  instead  of  being 
-taxed  now  as  it  must,  and  thus  cause  its  cutting,  as  a  great 
many  people  say,  may  be  assessed  by  the  legislature  in  any  way 
it  sees  fit.  The  forest  men  can  come  before  the  legislature  and 
propose  any  laws  which  they  think  will  preserve  our  forests, 
and  those  laws  can  be  enacted.  If  the  legislature  does  not 
want  to  do  that,  it  can  let  the  law  remain  as  it  is.  The  next 
ieature  of  the  resolutioin  is  "money  at  interest,  including 
money  in  savings  banks."  Money  at  interest  means  credits, 
"that  are  now  taxed  at  full  value.  The  piece  of  paper  evi- 
dencing the  credit  is  worth  nothing  intrinsically,  but  we  at- 
tempt to  tax  that  piece  of  paper  at  the  value  stated  on  the 
face  of  it.  Of  course,  that  is  double  taxation,  and  people  ar«^ 
getting  rid  of  those  pieces  of  paper.  Here  is  the  opportunity 
for  the  legislature  to  take  a  little  tax  from  these  pieces  of 
paper.  The  legislature,  if  it  wants  to,  can  leave  them  taxable 
as  they  are  now,  or  it  can  specially  classify  them,  and  take  a 
small  tax,  in  the  nature  of  an  income  tax,  which  people  will 
be  willing  to  pay.  It  means  notes,  money  in  savings  banks, 
TDonds  and  mortgages.  Money  in  the  Massachusetts  bank 
■would  be  a  credit  to  the  New  Hampshire  depositor,  and  a  little 
income  tax  should  be  taken  from  him,  as  appears  later  in  the 
resolution.  Then  the  words  after  "money  at  interest,"  "in- 
cluding money  in  savings  banks," — that  is  merely  to  make  the 
present  method  of  taxing  the  savings  banks  constitutional. 
The  legislature  can  make  the  tax  fifty  or  seventy-five  cents,  or 
anything  the  members  want  to,  but  it  makes  the  present  method 
of  taxing  savings  banks  constitutional.  That  is  all  there  is  to 
that.  Now,  the  next  clause  is  in  the  nature  of  an  alternative; 
if  the  stocks  and  bonds  themselves  are  taxed,  an  income  tax 
cannot  be  imposed. 

Now,  stocks  of  foreign  corporations,  stocks  of  domestic  cor- 
porations, are  not  taxable.  You  cannot  tax  them  directly  or 
the  income  from  them.    It  is  thought  by  a  great  many  that 


Thuksday,  June  20,  1912.  465 

people  who  have  a  large  amount  of  money  invested  in  the  Penn- 
sylvania Kailroad,  for  illustration,  ought  to  contribute  some- 
thing towards  the  expenses  of  this  state.  It  is  merely  opening 
the  door  a  crack.  The  door  is  now  closed  so  far  as  taxation 
of  both  foreign  and  local  corporations  is  concerned.  This  reso- 
lution opens  it  so  j^ou  can  impose  an  income  tax,  as  the  legis- 
lature sees  fit,  on  the  income  from  all  these  foreign  stocks. 
This  word,  "foreign,"  was  put  in  here  after  long  discussion 
in  the  Committee,  and,  after  consideration,  it  was  thougnt 
better  to  leave  it  so  New  Hampshire  corporations  may  be 
fostered — people  may  invest  their  money  in  New  Hamp- 
shire corporations  and  build  up  these  industries.  It  is  making 
our  Constitution  exactly  what  the  Massachusetts  law  is.  Mas- 
sachusetts taxes  foreign  corporations,  but  does  not  tax  home 
corporations.  "And  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on  incomes  from 
stock  of  foreign  corporations  and  money  at  interest,  except 
on  incomes  from  money  deposited  in  savings  banks  in  this  state 
received  by  the  depositors."  Those  words  were  put  in  to  make 
it  clear  that  the  person  who  has  a  deposit  in  a  New  Hampshire 
savings  bank,  the  bank  having  paid  the  tax  on  that  deposit, 
will  not  be  called  upon  to  pay  a  tax  on  his  income  derived 
from  the  deposit.  There  was  some  question  about  the  mean- 
ing without  their  being  in  there.  There  was  also  some  ques- 
tion whether  you  could  tax  savings  banks  on  the  basis  of  their 
income.  Those  words  were  used  after  the  clause  was  written 
and  rewritten  several  times,  just  for  the  purpose  of  making  it 
clear  that  the  income  received  by  the  depositor  in  the  savings 
banks  shall  not  be  taxed,  but  do  leave  the  door  wide  open,  if 
the  legislature  sees  fit,  to  tax  the  savings  banks  on  the  basis 
of  their  income.  Then  it  goes  on,  "and  it  may  graduate  such 
taxes  according  to  the  amount  of  the  incomes,  and  may  grant 
reasonable  exemptions."  That  is  a  simple  statement  of  what  is 
known  as  graded  income  taxation.  It  is  almost  the  language  of 
the  Wisconsin  Constitution.  If  a  person  has  a  small  income, 
if  the  legislature  wants  to  exempt  it  from  taxation  it  can,  and 
it  can  increase  the  taxation,  according  to  the  individual's  in- 
come. If  he  has  $100,000,  he  can  pay  a  little  more  tax  than 
the  man  who  has  $1,000.  This  is  put  in  so  the  legislature  will 
have  a  free  hand  in  this  matter. 

"Provided,  that  if  such  taxes  be  levied  on  incomes  from  stock 
and  money  at  interest,  no  other  taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon 
against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof;  that  is  to  say,  if  the 
pieces  o*  paper  themselves  are  taxed,  there  shall  be  no  income 
tax   imposed.     That  is   what  it  means,  no  more,  no  less.     We 


466    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

had  written  it  in  the  first  place  the  way  the  President  read  it 
this  morning,  but  that  was  a  clerical  error.  "No  other  tax  shall 
be  levied  on  such  property,"  This  phraseology  raised  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  underlying  property  could  be  taxed  if  the 
income  was  taxed.  It  was  a  pertinent  question,  and,  having 
considered  that,  we  thought  by  putting  in  the  words,  "no  other 
taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon,"  that  is,  on  the  stock  and  money 
at  interest,  the  doubt  would  be  removed.  We  have  tried  in 
every  way  to  guard  against  the  imposition  of  a  double  tax  by 
the  income  tax  and  taxation  of  the  pieces  of  paper. 

Now,  the  income  tax,  of  course,  is  a  double  taxation,  the 
property  having  paid.  I  have  gone  through  that  and  it  is 
not  necessary  to  explain  it.  We  expect  to  take  a  small  portion 
by  means  of  this  tax  from  property  outside  the  state,  because 
it  is  thought  people  ought  to  contribute  something  towards  the 
expenses  of  the  state,  if  they  live  here  and  have  the  ability. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  CoUhrook. — I  fully  agree  with  Mr.  Fellows  of 
Tilton  that  everything  should  be  done  to  foster  the  state  cor- 
porations and  the  state  institutions  that  can  be  taken  care  of 
by  the  legislature.  What  will  be  the  effect  if  the  Pullman  Com- 
pany or  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  should  come  into  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  and  take  out  articles  of  incorporation? 

Mr.  fellows  of  Tilton. — I  will  frankly  saj^  that  at  this  minute  I 
cannot  answer  the  question.  I  do  not  think  there  is  the  slight- 
est danger  that  they  will  come  in  here  and  do  that.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Dover,  Mr.  Whittemore,  suggests  we  can  get  at 
them  from  corporation  fees.  That  is  true.  It  is  utterly  impossi- 
ble, within  two  or  three  weeks  we  are  here,  and  in  the  Commit- 
tees, where  we  have  met,  to  consider  all  these  fine  points.  You 
may  ask  me  a  hundred  questions  that  I  cannot  answer  here  ou 
the  floor.  All  I  can  say  is,  this  Committee  has  honestly  tried  to 
get  up  a  measure  which  will  permit  the  classification  of  grow- 
ing wood  and  timber,  and  intangibles,  and  to  get  an  income  tax 
from  intangibles,  and  to  open  the  door  a  little  so  that  you  can 
get  some  return  frorn  foreign  stocks.  Now,  the  various  ques- 
tions that  the  gentleman  from  Colebrook  has  raised  here  are 
pertinent  questions,  but  they  go  into  details  so  much  I  cannot 
answer  them.  I  do  not  believe  the  Pullman  Company  or  the 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  are  going  to  incorporate  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  I  doubt  if  there  are  many  corporations  who  do  in- 
corporate here  and  have  most  of  their  property  outside  of  the 
state.  All  I  can  say  about  that  is,  that  a  person  owning  the 
stock  of  such  corporation  would  escape  a  slight  amount  of 
double  taxation,  which  is  imposed  by  the  income  tax. 


Thuksday,  June  20,  1912.  467 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaif. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  wish 
to  state  my  position  on  this  amendment  offered  by  the  Commit- 
tee. I  feel  much  sympathy  with  the  gentleman  from  Ports- 
mouth, and  you  all  know  pretty  well  what  my  position  is  on 
the  question  of  taxation.  These  amendments  are  not  my 
amendments,  and  these  amendments  are  not  in  the  form  that  I 
believe  is  the  proper  way  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  but  I  want  to  point  out  what  these 
amendments  do  allow. 

They  allow,  first,  the  legislature  to  classify  timberland.  Now, 
while  I  am  in  favor  of  removing,  in  general,  the  restrictions 
that  now  rest  upon  the  legislature,  I  am  in  favor  of  giving 
the  legislature  the  power  to  classify  timberlands  as  it  sees  fit. 
I  know,  as  well  as  a  great  many  of  you  gentlemen  know,  that 
timberlands  in  the  past  have  been  greatly  undertaxed,  but  I  do 
not  think  that  is  any  reason  why  they  should  be  overtaxed, 
or  taxed  in  such  a  way  as  to  really  injure,  in  the  long  run, 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  lower  the  amount  of  tax  we 
shall  get,  taking  a  long  period  of  time;  so,  therefore,  I  am  in 
favor  of  giving  the  legislature  power  to  classify  timberlands, 
which  this  amendment  does. 

It  also  gives  the  legislature  power  to  classify  what  are  called 
intangibles, — bonds  and  money  at  interest, — and  tax  them  at  a 
less  rate  than  other  property.  Now,  in  reply  to  the  gentleman 
from  Peterborough,  I  believe  that  class  of  property,  and  the 
men  in  the  community  who  have  owned  that  kind  of  property, 
have  escaped  for  a  good  many  years  the  fair  share  of  the  burden 
of  taxation  which  they  ought  to  pay,  and  that  is  the  reason 
why  I  am  in  favor  of  giving  the  legislature  power  to  treat  that 
kind  of  property  differently  than  it  does  other  property,  be- 
cause I  believe,  the  moment  you  get  a  proper  method  of  taxing 
them,  they  will  give  you  more  revenue  than  to  treat  them  as 
ordinary  property,  and  tax  them  at  the  full  rate.  That  has 
been  the  law  for  years,  and  under  that  law,  out  of  more  than 
one  hundred  millions  of  that  kind  of  property,  less  than  five 
millions  have  been  returned  for  taxation,  in  spite  of  pretty 
strict  inventory  laws  on  our  statute  books.  Now,  I  think  we 
better  give  up  a  method  of  trying  to  tax  that  kind  of  prop- 
erty which  gets  at  a  good  deal  less  than  five  percent  of  it. 

I  believe  we  could  actually  get  more  tax  to  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  if  we  treated  that  property  in  a  different  way  than 
we  do  cows  and  horses.  A  man  who  has  bonds  will  not  dis- 
close them,  or  he  will  sell  them  if  taxed  at  such  a  high  rate. 

This  amendment  also  allows  the  legislature  to  assess  a  tax 


468    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

upon  the  incomes  from  money  at  interest,  bonds,  and  the  stock 
of  foreig-n  corporations,  and,  personally,  I  don't  care  a  snap 
about  that  amendment.  And  I  will  make  a  prophecy:  You  never 
will  have  a  state  income  tax  on  the  stock  of  foreign  corpora- 
tions that  will  ever  give  you  revenue  enough  so  you  can  find 
it  in  your  state  receipts.  The  only  way  you  can  impose  an  in- 
come tax  on  corporations,  the  only  way  it  has  ever  been  done 
in  the  wide  world  and  done  successfully,  is  where  the  corpora- 
tion is  in  control  of  the  state  or  nation  and  you  can  make  it 
disclose  its  stockholders.  Do  you  think  we  can  make  the 
Pennsylvania,  tell  us  who  are  its  stockholders  in  New  Hamp- 
shire? .  I  do  not  think  that  pov^er,  if  given  to  the  legislature, 
will  do  anybody  any  harm  or  do  anybody  any  good,  so,  per- 
sonally, I  do  not  care  much  what  form  it  is  in.  If  we  could  tax 
stock  of  domestic  corporations,  there  is  no  escape  from  it,  be- 
cause we  could  require  every  domestic  corporation  to  file  a  list 
of  stockholders,  and  you  would  get  every  cent.  It  looks  good 
to  have  it  on  your  statute  books  that  we  can  tax  the  incomes 
of  foreign  corporations,  but  I  would  like  to  see  it  done.  It 
never  has  been  done,  and  it  has  been  tried  and  tried  a  great 
many  times,  and  I  think  it  is  practically  harmless. 

I  fwant  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  another 
matter  of  which  the  Legislative  Committee  has  said  I  may 
speak.  We  had  a  vote  this  afternoon  in  which  the  majority 
of  the  Committee, — it  was  a  divided  vote, — a  majority  of  the 
Committee  adopted  this  amendment.  The  Committee  may,  on 
its  own  initiative,  report  an  amendment.  The  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department  report  the  following  amendment,  with 
the  resolution  that  it  be  adopted  by  the  Convention: 
(Reads  Resolution  No.  59.) 

Now,  that  proposed  amendment  will  be  pwnted  and  probably 
made  a  special  order  for  tomorrow.  As  this  Committee  was 
instructed  to  bring  in  a  report  covering  just  three  distinct  mat- 
ters, I  did  not  feel  like  asking  the  Committee  to  add  that  a.s 
an  amendment  to  the  measures  which  you  had  instructed  us  to 
bring  in,  but  I  think  they  belong  together,  and  I  think  they 
really  ought  to  go  together.  That  is  an  amendment  I  consider 
of  great  practical  importance  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, — 
of  great  practical  importance,  and  I  care  more  about  it  than 
I  do  the  others,  and  I  would  like  to  suggest  that,  if  adopted,  it 
would  settle  some  possible  loopholes  in  the  amendment  which 
the  Committee  has  already  put  in  here  today. 

You  know  the  railroads  are  now  taxed  at  the  average  rate  of 
taxation  upon  the  actual  value  of  their  property,  and,  in  gei- 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  469 

ting  at  the  average  rate  of  taxation,  for  a  great  many  years 
the  Board  of  Equalization  figured  in  the  savings  bank  tax,  that- 
being  a  tax  upon  a  good  deal  of  property  at  a  low  rate  of  three 
fourths  of  one  percent,  and  you  can  see  made  the  average  rate 
of  taxation  quite  a  good  deal  lower  than  if  it  had  not  been 
figured  in.  It  made  a  difference  in  the  railroad  tax  of  the  Bos- 
ton &  Maine  Kailroad  of  some  seventy  or  eighty  thousand  dol- 
lars a  year.  A  suit  was  brought  against  the  Board  of  Equaliza- 
tion by  a  private  citizen,  asking  the  Court  to  compel  that  board 
not  to  take  into  consideration  the  savings  bank  tax,  and  to 
tax  the  railroads  upon  the  average  rate  of  taxation  of  ordinary 
property,  such  as  we  hold,  most  of  us,  and  pay  taxes  on.  The 
Court  decided  that  they  were  obliged  to  take  the  savings  bank 
tax  into   consideration. 

Now,  the  legislature  of  1909  passed  a  special  law  saying  that 
the  Board  of  Equalization  or  Tax  Commission  should  not  take 
into  consideration  the  tax  on  savings  banks.  At  that  time, 
when  that  law  was  proposed,  very  eminent  and  able  constitu- 
tional lawj-ers  suggested  that  we  could  not  do  it,  the  Consti- 
tution would  not  allow  it,  but  counsel  for  the  Boston  &  Maine 
Eailroad  notified  the  legislature,  notified  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  that  they  would  consent  to  that  law,  they  would 
not  raise  that  question.  In  other  words,  we  had  to  get  the  con- 
sent of  the  corporations  to  be  taxed  that  we  could  tax  them  in 
that  way.  They  kept  that  agreement;  they  have  not  raised 
that  question,  but  another  corporation  which  did  not  make  the 
agreement  has  raised  the  question,  and  it  is  in  the  Court  today, 
and,  if  it  is  decided  bj^  the  Court  that  the  law  is  unconstitu- 
tional, all  the  corporations  will  receive  the  benefit  of  it, — the 
public  service  corporations, — and  it  will  mean  a  loss  in  revenuo 
to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  of  over  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  a  year,  and  it  may,  if  the  position  of  counsel  for  the 
railroad  and  other  very  eminent  constitutional  lawyers,  who 
know  a  great  deal  about  the  intricacies  and  difficulties  of  this 
constitutional  question,  if  the  position  they  have  taken  is  cor- 
rect, it  will  vitiate  the  whole  assessment.  That  is  the  actual 
situation  which  confronts  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  today 
on  the  taxation  of  public  service  corporations,  and  we  propose 
in  these  amendments  to  specially  tax  a  good  deal  of  their  prop- 
erty which  has  been  taxed  at  full  rates.  We  propose  to  put  iu 
timberlands  at  special  rates;   stocks  and  bonds  at  special  rates. 

Now,  I  have  no  doubt  that  some  able  constitutional  lawyer 
who  is  employed  by  the  public  service  corporations  may  at 
least  raise  the  question  that  all  this  property  which  is  specially 


470      JouuNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

taxed  must  be  included  in  getting  the  average  .rate  of  tax- 
ation, and  the  rate  at  which  all  public  service  corporations  are 
taxed,  if  that  is  held  true,  will  drop,  and  you  cannot  help  ii;, 
not  with  the  Constitution  as  it  is  now,  the  legislature  cannot 
help  it.  You  would  have  to  wait  until  you  got  another  constitu- 
tional amendment.  Therefore,  I  say,  if  these  amendments  are 
adopted  that  were  put  in  here  today,  I  believe  it  very  essential 
that  this  further  amendment  recommended  by  a  majority  of 
the  Committee,  that  the  legislature  further  have  full  power  to 
tax  public  service  corporations  upon  the  basis  of  their  gross 
income,  in  lieu  of  any  tax  upon  their  o.ther  property,  be 
adopted.  If  these  amendments  were  all  submitted  to  the  people 
and  adopted,  I  believe  we  should  have  some  improvement  over 
our  present  method,  although  we  would  have,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Portsmouth  says,  cumbered  up  our  Constitution  with  a 
good  many  specific  details  which  may  raise  technical  legal  ques- 
tions, but  we  have  got  them  now,  and  the  only  way  to  avoid 
them,  that  I  know  of,  would  have  been  to  adopt  a  radical, 
revolutionary,  wild-eyed,  socialistic,  anarchistic  amendment, 
which  follows  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Maryland, 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Goffsfjown. — Would  Mr.  Stevens  allow  me  to  ask 
him  one  question?  He  goes  back  to  the  State  Board  of  Equal- 
ization. I  would  like  to  know  where  that  authority  came  from 
for  the  people  to  tax  a  man  with  a  farm  five  thousand  dol- 
lars, and  a  neighbor  having  five  thousand  dollars  in  the  savings 
bank,  to  tax  that  three  fourths  of  one  percent. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Lcmdaff. — I  will  explain  all  that  is  known  on 
the  subject.  It  will  not  take  long.  The  Court  decided  that  the 
taxation  upon  the  savings  bank  was  not  constitutional,  it  was 
not  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  or  decisions  of  the 
Court  about  the  Constitution,  but  it  was  an  anomaly, — if  you 
know  what  that  is, — and  therefore  it  is  allowed  to  stand. 

Mr.  Mmris  of  Larwaster. — I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  the  question  under  consideration.  It  is  the  form 
of  the  resolution  now  before  us  that  is  under  discussion,  and 
that  is  all.  The  Convention  directed  the  Committee  to  bring 
in  a  resolution  covering  the  taxation  of  wood  and  timberland, 
and  money  at  interest.  We  were  also  directed  to  provide  for  an 
income  tax.  You  have  already  voted  on  the  main  issues.  The 
Convention  has  already  expressed  its  opinion.  Now  the  ques- 
tion is  one  of  form  only.  The  form  of  the  resolution  has  been 
threshed  out  and  carefully  considered  by  your  Committee  and 
by  a  sub-Committee.    We  have  done  our  duty  the  best  we  can. 


Thuksday,  June  20,  1912.  471 

The  question  is,  whether  the  form  of  the  resolution,  as  drafted 
by  the  Committee,  is  such  that  the  Convention  is  willing  to 
adopt  it.  I  understand  that  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr. 
Stevens,  agrees  to  the  entire  resolution  as  drafted,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  amendments  which  he  has  proposed  with  refer- 
ence to  foreign  corporations,  which  you  have  voted  down. 

It  is  true  that  we,  as  a  Committee,  agreed  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Landaff  to  report  a  resolution  such  as  he  has  de- 
scribed and  which  he  has  discussed.  It  was  not  to  be  in  the 
form  of  an  amendment  to  the  present  resolution,  and  the  Com- 
mittee did  not  suppose  that  it  was  to  be  discussed  at  length 
at  this  time.  We  supposed  it  was  to  stand  on  its  own  merits, 
and  that  it  would  be  in  order  for  discussion  at  a  later  time,  or 
at  such  time  as  it  might  be  made  a  special  order  for  consiHera- 
tion;   perhaps  some  time  tomorrow. 

I  do  not  understand  that  Mr.  Stevens,  by  his  present  discus- 
sion of  the  resolution  which  he  proposes  to  introduce,  or  which 
the  Committee  has  agreed  to  introduce  later,  but  which  is  not 
now  before  us,  desires  to  be  understood  as  saying  anything  de- 
rogatory to  the  form  of  the  resolution  which  the  Committee  has 
reported  in  accordance  with  its  instructions  from  the  Conven- 
tion. I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  if  this  U 
correct. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — That  is  substantially  correct.  I  did 
not  vote  for  this  amendment  as  it  is,  yet  I  consider  it  better 
than  nothing. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — I  desired  to  make  the  explanation  to 
the  Convention  so  that  we  might  not  be  put  in  a  false  light. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — All  that  is  needed  to  solve  this  whole 
problem  is  for  men  to  be  honest  and  declare  all  their  property 
for  taxation.  Then  every  man,  rich  or  poor,  will  pay  a  tax 
that  is  just  and  will  not  be  a  burden  upon  any  one. 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury. — I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Morris  a  ques- 
tion, for  the  information  of  myself  and  many  others.  The  Con- 
vention asked  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  to  re- 
port a  resolution  covering  wild  and  forest  lands,  and  the  wild 
lands  is  stricken  out.  What  was  the  objection  to  the  Mitchell 
amendment? 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — For  the  information  of  the  gentle- 
man, I  wil  say  that  this  very  question  was  discussed  carefully  in 
the  Committee  room.  In  the  original  Mitchell  amendment  the 
words,  "wild  and  forest  lands,"  were  used,  as  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Danbury,  But  if  you  will  examine  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  which  motion 


472     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

was  adopted  by  the  Convention,  you  will  find  that,  the  words^ 
"growing-  wood  and  timber,"  were  substituted.  The  motion  of 
Mr.  Jones  embodied  the  instructions  of  the  Convention  to  the 
Committee,  and,  considering-  ourselves  bound  by  our  instruc- 
tions, your  Committee  adopted  the  language  which  appears  in 
the  resolution  in  its  present  form.  The  words,  "growing  wood 
and  timber,"  were  substituted  for  the  words,  "wild  and  forest 
lands." 

The  President. — If  there  is  no  objection,  the  Chair  will  under- 
take to  state  what  he  understands  to  be  the  situation.  In  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  after  the  Stevens 
amendment  had  been  defeated,  the  Committee  reported  this 
resolution: 

^'■Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Committee  [and  that 
was  the  Convention]  that  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  state  be  submitted  to  the  people,  which  will  give  to  the 
legislature  the  right  to  classify  intangibles  and  growing  wood 
and  timber  for  the  purposes  of  taxation,  and  to  make  reason- 
able exemptions,  and  further  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes 
from   intangible   property." 

The  Convention  in  Committee  unanimously  adopted  that  reso- 
lution. It  came  back  to  the  Convention,  it  was  submitted  ta 
the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  with  unanimous  in- 
structions to  return  to  this  Convention  a  proposed  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  which  would  embody  these  three  things. 
The  Committee,  consisting  of  twenty  men,  has  now  unanimously 
recommended  the  bill  which  is  before  us,  which  expressly,  as 
the  Chair  understands  it,  permits  the  legislature  to  classify  in- 
tangibles, to  classify  woodlands,  and  impose  a  tax  upon  the 
income  from  intangibles, — exactly  what  the  Convention  has  once 
unanimously  asked  that  Committee  to  do. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  211  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  16  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  Committee  was  adopted,  and  the  resolution 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Sub- 
mitting to  the  People  the  Amendments  agreed  'to  by  the  Con- 
vention. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  -47a 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  report  the  following  resolution  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention: — 

Resolution  Xo.  59, 

Relating  to  Taxation  of  Public  Service  Corporations. 

Amend  Article  6,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution  by 
adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  "and  the  General 
Court,  in  imposing  Ji^'tax  upon  public  service  corporations, 
shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the 
incomes  of  such  corporations  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon 
their  property/^  So  that,  as  amended,  said  section  shall  read 
as  follows: 

"Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 
other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
when  passing  by  will  or  inheritance;  and  there  shall  be  a 
valuation  of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once 
in  every  five  years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  Gen- 
eral Court  shall  order;  and  the  General  Court  in  imposing 
a  tax  upon  public  service  corporations,  shall  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  of  sueli 
corporations  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon  their  property." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee, — 

AYith  that  question  pending,  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaf?  moved 
that  the  resolution  be  laid  on  the  table  to  be  printed,  andi' 
that  the  same  be  made  a  Special  Order  for  10.35  o'clock,  Fri- 
day, June  21. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff,— 


474    Journal  of  Constitutional  (Convention. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Land^aff. — Mr.  President,  I  make  this  motion  at 
the  request  of  several  members  of  the  Committee  who  voted 
against  it  and  were  somewhat  doubtful  on  the  proposition,  and 
wanted  a  little  time  to  think  it  over  and  to  have  it  printed.  It 
is  in  deference  to  the  Committee,  who  wanted  a  little  time. 
As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  personally,  I  would  like  very  much 
to  put  it  to  a  vote  here  and  now. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — The  gentleman  from  Landalf  has  per- 
haps not  stated  it  as  fully  as  I  know  he  intended  to,  that  there 
were  some  members  who  dissented  from  this  report  who  were 
not  present  when  the  others  fully  agreed  to  it  the  other  day. 
Am  I  not  correct?  There  were  three  or  four  members  who 
were  not  present  when  we  discussed  this  matter  and  substan- 
tially agreed  to  it. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  moved  to  amend  by  making 
the  time  5  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Boynton  of 
Portsmouth, — 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. — Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to  say  just 
a  word  upon  this.  This  proposed  amendment  has  been  reported 
by  the  Legislative  Committee  as  a  new  matter  for  you  to  con- 
sider, and  it  was  understood  by  the  Committee  this  afternoon 
when  the  report  was  to  come  in  that  the  matter  should  not  go 
through  in  a  rush.  I  would  like  to  hurry,  and  I  know  Mr. 
Stevens  and  all  the  rest  would,  and  get  along  just  as  fast  as  we 
can,  but  it  is  only  fair  that  this  be  printed  so  we  can  all  read 
it,  and  other  people  who  may  be  interested  in  it  may  have  a 
chance  to  read  it.  In  other  words,  if  we  put  it  through  right 
now,  it  may  be  all  right  and  everybody  may  be  satisfied,  or  there 
may  be  some  person  who  would  like  to  be  heard.  We  all  be- 
lieve in  fair  play,  we  all  believe  in  giving  everybody  a  reasonable 
chance  to  be  heard,  and  if  there  is  not  anybody,  or  if  objections 
do  not  seem  valid,  we  can  put  it  through  tomorrow  forenoon  in 
a  very  few  minutes,  and  then  it  will  look  a  little  better  than 
it  would  to  be  reported  by  the  Legislative  Committee  at  quarter 
of  five  and  passed  at  half  past  five,  without  the  members  them- 
selves having  a  chance  to  read  it  through  carefully,  or  the  pub- 
lic in  general  having  any  notice  of  what  it  contains,  and  I  hope 
the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth,  in  the  interest  of  fair  play  in 
our  closing  days,  will  withdraw  his  suggestion  and  let  the 
amendment  be  printed. 

Ml-.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth  withdrew  his  amendment. 


Thursday,  June  20,  1912.  475 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Upham  of  Claremont,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred 
Resolution  No.  53,  Relating  to  the  Council,  having  consid- 
ered the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed  in  the  said  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Upliam  of  Claremont,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred 
Resolution  No.  57,  Relating  to  the  Council,  having  consid- 
ered the  same,  report  the  same  with,  the  following  resolu- 
tion:—  I 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed  in  the  said  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion:— 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  adjourn  at  12  o'clock  noon, 
Saturday,  June  22,  and  that  all  resolutions  not  acted  upon 
by  that  time  be  indefinitely  postponed,  and  that  the  Secre- 
tary be  instructed  to  make  up  the  Journal)  of  the  Convention. 
The  Secretary  is  further  instructed  to  prepare  the  pay-roll  of 
the  Convention  and  present  the  same  to  the  Committee  on 
Finance. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution, — 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury  moved  to  amend  by  making  the  time 
of  adjournment  Friday,  at  5.30  o'clock. 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury  withdrew  his  amendment. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of  Mr. 
X/ambert  of  Manchester, — 


476    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

'    Mr.  Goss  of  Berlin  moved  to  amend  by  making  the  time 
of  adjournment  11  o'clock,  Saturday. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Question  being  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Lambert  of  Man- 
chester, as  amended, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 
'  Eeport  of  Oommtttee  OiK  Mileage. 

Mr.  Hayden  of  Hollis,  for  the  Committee  on  Mileage,  pre- 
sented the  following  report: — 

The  Committee  on  Mileage,  being  in  doubt  as  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  law  in  regard  to  mileage  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention,  have,  by  their  chairman,  consulted 
the  Attorney-General  in  relation  thereto  and  find  that  the 
law  does  not  provide  for  mileage  other  than  that  furnished 
on  the  steam  railroads  by  the  Secretary  of  State. 

DANIEL  W.  HAYDEN, 
Chairrmm  Committee  on  Mileage, 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Wright  of  Sanbornton  was  granted  leave  of  absence 
for  Friday  on  account  of  important  business. 

Mr.  Young  of  Charlestown  was  granted  leave  of  absence 
for  Friday  forenoon  on  account  of  important  business. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  French  of  Moultonborough,  the  Con- 
vention adjourned  at  4.59  o'clock. 

FRIDAY,  June  21,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  10.30  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  477 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  Charles  C.  Gar- 
land. 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin,  the  further  read- 
ing of  the  Journal  was  dispensed  with. 

Leave  of  Absence. 

Mr.  Mathews  of  Alexandria  was  granted  leave  of  absence 
for  this  afternoon  on  account  of  death  in  the  family. 

'Committee  on  Journal. 

In  accordance  with  a  resolution  previously  adopted,  the 
President  announced  the  appointment  of  the  following  gen- 
tlemen as  a  Committee  on  Journal  of  Proceedings  of  this 
Convention:  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  Mr.  French  of 
J^ashua,  Mr.  Young  of  ISTorthfield,  Mr.  G-affney  of  Nashua, 
Mr.  Veazie  of  littleton. 

Mr.  McLane  of  Milford,  for  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
asked  permission  for  the  Committee  to  sit  during  the  morn- 
ing session  of  the  Convention. 

No  objection  being  raised,  permission  was  granted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
No.  33,  Relating  to  Taxation,  having  considered  the  same, 
report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

•  Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  resolution,  the  subject-matter  having  been 
acted  upon  in  another  resolution. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Cain  of  Keene,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative  De- 
partment, to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No.  56^  Relating 


478     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

to  the  Charter  of  Cities,  having  considered  the  same,  report 
the  same,  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Besolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
No.  37,  Eelating  to  an  Income  Tax,  having  considered  the 
same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  said  resolution,  the  subject-matter  having 
been  reported  favorably  in  a  new  draft. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
No.  39,  Eelating  to  the  Taxation  of  Wild  Lands,  having  con- 
sidered the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  reso- 
lution:— 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed,  the  subject-matter  having  already  been  reported 
and  acted  upon  in  a  new  draft. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
No.  48,  Relating  to  Roll-Call  in  the  Legislature,  having  con- 
sidered the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  reso- 
lution:— 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed. 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  479 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee 
on  Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolu- 
tion No.  50,  Eclating  to  Taxes,  having  considered  the  same, 
report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed,  the  subject-matter  of  said  resolution  having 
been  already  acted  upon  by  the  Convention. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
N"o.  51,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Incomes,  having  considered 
the  same,  report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed,  the  subject-matter  of  said  resolution  having 
been  reported  in  a  new  draft. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Hall  of  Dover,  for  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution 
No.  31,  Relating  to  Approval  of  Bills,  having  considered  the 
same,  report  the  same,  in  a  new  draft,  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  the  resolution,  in  its  new  draft,  be  agreed  to  by  the 
Convention. 

Resolution  No.  31. 

Relating  to  Approval  of  Bill. 

(In  new  draft.) 

Amend  Article  44,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution  by 
adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following: — 

The  Governor  may  approve  or  disapprove  any  separate  ap- 
propriation contained  in  any  bill  or  resolution.     Such  por- 


480      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

tions  as  he  may  approve  shall  thereupon  become  a  law  and 
such  portions  as  he  may  disapprove  shall  thereupon  be  re- 
turned separately  in  the  manner  provided  in  the  preceding 
section  and  separately  reconsidered  and  if  repassed  as 
therein  provided  shall  become  a  law. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted, 
and  the  resolution  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  that  Eesolution  Xo.  58,  Re- 
lating to  Taxation,  be  recalled  from  the  Committee  on  Time 
^nd  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  President,  I  will  say  that  our  at- 
tention has  been  called  to  a  slight  omission  in  the  amendment 
as  prepared,  and  it  is  something-  that  all  of  the  Committee 
would  be  glad  to  incorporate.  It  relates,  I  will  say  frankly, 
to  the  question  whether  we  haven't  left  a  loophole  for  express 
companies.     That  is  all. 

Mr.  PilUhury  of  Londonderry. — I  hope  this  motion  will  prevail. 
It  was  found  upon  discussion  by  some  members  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amend- 
ments Agreed  to  by  the  Convention  that  it  was  very  probable 
that  it  would  exempt  the  express  company, — which  is  a  volun- 
tary corporation,  and  the  words,  "voluntary  corporations,*' 
should  be  inserted,  as  I  don't  believe  that  any  amendment  to 
this  Constitution  would  pass  with  the  people  that  would  ex- 
empt the  express  companies  (which  pays  12  percent)  from 
paying,  or  people  owning  stock  in  the  express  company,  to 
exempt  them  from  taxation.  If  it  can  be  recalled  and  the 
words,  "voluntary  corporations,"  be  inserted,  they  will  take 
care  of  it. 

Mr.  Uphum  of  Claremont.— Isn't  it  "voluntary  associations?" 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londlonderry.— That  will  fix  that— yes,  volun- 
tary associations. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 


Fkiday,  June  21,  1912.  481 

Mr.  Wason  of  K"ashua  moved  that  the  vote  whereby  the 
Convention  agreed  to  Eesolution  No.  58,  Eelating  to  Tax- 
ation, be  reconsidered. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being, — 

Shall  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee,  that  the  pro- 
posed amendment  be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  be 
adopted? 

With  that  motion  pending, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  that  the  resolution  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  for 
further  consideration. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  asked  permission  that  the  Commit- 
tee on  Legislative  Department  be  granted  an  extension  of 
time  in  which  to  report  upon  resolutions  now  in  its  hands. 

No  objection  being  raised, — 

Further  time  was  granted. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff  called  for  the  Special  Order  for 
10.35  o^clock  this  morning,  the  same  being  Eesolution  No. 
59,  Eelating  to  the  Taxation  of  Public  Service  Corporations. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee  that  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution be  agreed  to  by  the  Convention, — 

Mr.  WhitcMr  of  Haverhill. — When  the  resolution  proposing  the 
amendment  to  th6  Constitution,  providing*  for  the  income  tax 
upon  stocks  of  corporations,  was  before  the  Convention  yester- 
day, the  attention  of  the  Convention  was  called  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Smith,  to  the  fact  that  the  pro- 
ceeds of  this  tax  would  go  entirely  into  the  state  treasury,  and, 


482    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

while  the  language  of  the  amendment,— the  proposed  amend- 
ment now  before  us, — does  not  specifically  state,  as  did  the 
language  of  the  amendment  adopted  yesterday,  that  the  pro- 
ceeds should  go  into  the  state  treasury,  to  be  used  for  state 
affairs,  it  seems  to  me  that  by  implication  it  would  have  the 
same  effect.  Now,  it  is  a  fact,  as  we  all  know,  that  the  money 
raised  by  taxation  of  public  service  corporations  -at  the  pres- 
ent time,  while  collected  by  the  State  Treasurer,  goes,  for  the 
most  part,  to  the  towns  of  the  state,  to  be  used  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  towns.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  the  tax  hereafter 
is  to  become  the  property  of  the  state,  the  towns  of  the  state 
are  to  be  deprived  of  a  very  large  source  of  their  present  in- 
come, and  additional  burdens  will  be  placed  upon  the  towns 
for  town  expenses,  school  expenses,  highway  expenses, — some- 
thing that  I  think  we  should  carefully  consider.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve. Sir,  that  we  wish  to  cover  into  the  state  treasury,  for 
state  uses  alone,  all  the  monies  that  are  raised  by  taxes  upon 
public  service  corporations.  Of  course,  this  matter  is  left,  as  I 
suppose,  in  the  hands  of  the  legislatures  of  the  future,  but  by 
implication,  at  least,  it  seems  to  me  that  by  this  amendment 
these  taxes  raised  on  public  service  corporations  are  covered 
entirely  in  the  state  treasury,  and  the  towns  of  the  state  derive 
no  benefit  from  them.  I  hope,  Sir,  this  will  be  carefully  con- 
sidered, and  if  this  objection  can  properly  be  raised  -against 
this  amendment,  I  am  most  emphatically  against  it. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — The  gentleman  from  Haverhill  is  labor- 
ing under  a  complete  mistake.  This  law  has  absolutely  no  ef- 
fect whatever  upon  the  division  of  the  railroad  taxes,  or  the 
taxes  on  any  other  public  service  corporation.  The  division  of 
the  railroad  taxes  today  is  entirely  a  matter  of  statute  law, 
regulated  by  the  legislature.  The  legislature  can  today  keep 
all  that  tax,  if  it  sees  fit,  for  the  state  treasury,  or  divide  it 
up  among  the  towns,  or  counties,  as  it  sees  fit,  and  jt  can  do  s»o 
under  this  amendment.  It  did  not  occur  to  me  as  a  possible 
objection  that  any  man  would  think  that  this  amendment 
meant,  by  implication  or  construction,  that  the  towns  would 
lose  money  which  they  now  have.  It  leaves  the  division  of 
the  corporation  taxes  exactly  where  it  is  today. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter.— 1  confess  that  I  am  unable  to  under- 
stand, and  there  are  several  others  in  this  Convention  who  do 
not  know,  what  the  meaning  or  effect  of  this  proposed  amend- 
ment will  be.  It  is  manifest  that  the  gentleman  from  Haver- 
hill, who  has  just  spoken,  whose  ignorance  has  just  been  en- 
lightened, was  as  bad  to  start  with  as  I,  onlj-  he  displayed  his 
ignorance  sooner  than  I  have. 


Friday,  JuxXe  21,  1912.  483 

What  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  meant  to  accomplish,  if 
he  drafted  it,  or  what  any  other  m^an  intended  to  accomplish, 
is  not  the  question  here.  The  question  is,  What  will  be  the 
result?  If  they  have  expressed  it  so  plainly  that  all  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  can  vote  intelligently  upon  it,  it  is 
possible  that  some  portion,  some  considerable  portion  of  the 
electors  of  this  state  will  also  have  fairly  definite  ideas  of  what 
it  means  and  be  able  to  vote  intelligently  upon  it.  If  they 
do  not  understand  it,  or  cannot  vote  in  favor  of  it,  they  will 
undoubtedly  vote  against  it,  which  is  the  wise  way,  or  they 
will  fail  to  vote  and  the  thing  will  not  get  the  requisite  num- 
ber of  votes  to  pass. 

There  are  words  in  here  that  are  of  doubtful  meaning.  What 
is  a  public  service  corporation?  Well,  we  have  got  some  Court 
decisions.  We  know  what  public  service  corporations  are,  per- 
haps. We  have  a  provision  in  our  Constitution,  which  we 
haven't  yet  moved  to  eliminate,  that  provides  that  private  prop- 
erty shall  not  be  taken  for  private  use  at  all,  and  shall  not  be 
taken  for  public  use  without  compensation,  and  when  some 
mian  comes  along  and  wants  to  put  telephone  poles,  or  a  mill 
dam,  or  anything  else,  on  your  land,  the  question  arises 
whether  he  is  taking  it  for  public  use.  If  instead  of  a  man  it 
is  a  corporation,  a,  public  orporation,  or  quasi-public  corpora- 
tion, it  is  what  this  term  public  service  corporation  means.  It 
has  been  solemnly  decided  by  our  Court,  although  decided  the 
other  way  bj^  several  of  the  states  in  the  Union,  that  a  grist- 
mill is  a  public  service.  Therefore  a  grist-mill  corporation 
would  be  a  public  service  corporation.  It  has  also  been  decided 
that  a  corporation  which  seeks  to  develop  heat,  light  and  power 
and  that  sort  of  thing  is  a  public  service  corporation — that,  by 
paying  for  your  land,  it  may  take  it  against  your  will. 

The  varieties  of  corporations  which  might  come  under  this 
head  of  public  service  corporations  are  absolutely  infinite. 
As  the  means  of  the  country  develop  and  the  ingenuity  of  its 
members  will  develop,  public  service  corporations  will  come  to 
be  considered  to  contain  everything  substantially  from  a  sau- 
sage factory  to  a  trolley  line.  There  is  one  species  of  corpora- 
tion that  is  unquestionably  a  public  service  corporation.  That 
is  a  trolley  line.  Xow%  what  is  the  effect  of  this  thing  going 
to  be? 

Eight  alongside  of  the  question.  What  is  a  public  service  cor- 
poration, we  come  to  the  question.  What  is  income?  And  what 
part  of  the  income  does  this  authorize  to  be  taxed  as  income? 
Is  everything  a  man  gets  his  income?  That  is,  gross  income  is 
all  a  man  gets  from  his  receipts  from  his  property  investments. 
There  is  a  distinction  drawn  between  net  and  gross  incomes. 


484    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

What  is  gross  income,  is  a  question  that  Courts  and  various 
bodies  throughout  the  country  are  laboring  over  at  this  very 
time.  This  amendment  does  not  say  whether  the  tax  shall  b«^ 
on  gross  or  net  income.  If  it  is  on  gross  income,  you  will  find 
this,  that  the  tax  levied  proportionall3% — and  this  amendment 
does  not  strike  out  the  word,  "proportional," — a  proportionjl 
tax  on  gross  incomes  of  one  kind  will  work  the  grossest  in- 
justice. The  trolley  line  from  Exeter  to  Portsmouth  no  longer 
exists;  but,  in  its  case,  to  levy  taxes  on  the  gross  income  wouM 
have  been  a  great  injustice.  There  was  nothing  in  the  way  of 
profit;  net  income  was  a  minus.  The  result  is  that  now,  if  J 
want  to  go  to  Portsmouth,  I  must  go  by  some  other  line.  Yoa 
could  have  eliminated  that  corporation  much  quicker  by  taxing 
its  gross  income.  There  are  other  trolley  lines  in  this  stat€ 
that  are  prosperous;  perhaps  a  few.  If  you  tax  them  on  their 
gross  income,  what  do  you  do?  Simply  wipe  out  the  whole 
road,  the  prosperous  and  those  that  are  not  prosperous;  or  yoii 
wipe  out  a  portion  of  them  that  are  not  prosperous,  and  do 
away  wdth  all  hope  of  their  ever  becoming  prosperous.  If  it 
is  the  net  income,  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  will  have  some- 
thing to  do  to  hunt  up  the  net  income,  because  the  net  income 
is  what  is  left  -after  paying  the  expenses  of  getting  it,  and 
the  expenses  of  getting  it,  I  understand,  include  salaries,  and 
include  various  things.  Salaries  are  the  most  flexible  things. 
I  never  had  any  experience  myself,  but  have  heard  of  it,— 
you  simply  open  the  door  to  the  biggest  job  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Landaff  ever  had.  You  will  have  to  raise  his  sal- 
ary, if  the  people  approve  this  amendment,  and  the  legislature 
passes  an  income  tax  upon  gross  or  net  income.  You  will  do  a 
g-reat  injustice  if  it  is  on  gross  income,  and  you  will  prob- 
ably do  injustice  if  it  is  on  net  income.  You  will  in  no  way 
lessen  the  job  of  collecting  the  taxes. 

There  are  other  things  which  I  do  not  understand,  but,  as 
I  say,  there  is  no  need  of  my  displaying  my  ignorance  more 
-at  this  time. 

I  hope  that  this  thing  will  be  put  in  such  shape  that  I  and 
every  one,  after  listening  to  the  others,  can  vote  intelligently 
on  it. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Neioport. — It  seems  to  me  we  are  trying  to  in- 
volve something  which  is  very  simple.  This  matter  was  taken 
lip  in  the  Committee;  Judge  Mitchell  framed  this  resolution. 
It  was  regarded  as  something  which  both  the  people  and  the 
corporations  wanted,  as  it  offered  a  fair  way  of  getting  out  of 
a  trouble, — some  situation.  You  will  notice  that  there  are  ao 
additional  powers  given  to  the  legislature.     The  resolution  pro- 


Friday,  June  21,  1912  485 

vides  onl^'  for  the  insertion  of  the  following  words:  "and  the 
General  Court  in  imposing-  a  tax,"  etc. — if  the  legislature  so 
desires  it  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of  a.  tax  upon  the 
income  of  a  corporation  "in  lieu  of  a  direct  assessment  upon  their 
property."  It  is  all  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature,  and  there 
is  no  trouble  about  it,  any  more  than  there  is  in  any  income 
tax.  I  cannot  see  any  great  bugbear  in  it.  It  seems  to  me  the 
objections  thrown  out  in  regard  to  this  very  simple  measure 
are  unwarranted.  I  cannot  see  any  "cat  in  the  meal."  I  may 
be  easy  on  these  things.  We  provide  an  additional  way  to  col- 
lect taxes,  not  enlarging  the  power  of  the  legislature  in  respect 
to  what  it  can  do. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter. — Will  you  answer  a  question? 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — I  will  if  I  can. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter, — What  is  the  result  you  hope  to  accom- 
plish if  you  have  this  amendment? 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — We  hope  to  give  the  legislature  power, 
if  they  see  fit,  to  collect  income  taxes  from  public  service  cor- 
porations instead  of  taxing  them  direct. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter.— In  what  way? 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — That  will  be  left  to  the  legislature. 
We  cannot  legislate  here.  They  may  see  fit  to  assess  on  gross 
incomes  or  on  net  incomes.  That  is  always  open  to  legislative 
debate,  where  opportunity  is  given  to  appear  and  urge  ob- 
jections. 

Mr.  Martin  of  Concord.— I  want  to  state,  for  the  Committee 
which  returned  this  resolution,  that  it  was  reported  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  and  the 
Committee  did  not  commit  itself  in  any  way  in  favor  of  the 
resolution. 

Now,  I  think  that  this  resolution  should  not  pass,  and  I  will 
try  to  explain  it  as  plainly  as  I  can.  In  making  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  we  must  all  agree  that  there  should  be 
some  good  reason  for  the  amendment;  that  there  is  some  defect, 
in  the  Constitution  or  laws  at  the  present  time.  Now,  like  all 
the  resolutions  introduced  by  our  friend  from  Landaff,  he  never 
gives  a  reason  why  they  should  be  adopted,  but  simply  gets 
up  here  and  introduces  them,  without  stating  to  us  what  is  the 
need  of  the  change.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  do  not  under- 
stand there  is  any  difficulty  whatever  with  the  present  system 
of  taxing  corporations  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  Cer- 
tainly-, with  our  Tax  Commission,  we  are  getting  all  the  taxes 
out  of  the  different  corporations  on  which  they  assess  the 
taxes  that  we  are  entitled  to.  They  have  increased  taxes  on  the 
express    company,    on    railroads,    and    perhaps    on    every   other 


486    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

public  service  corporation  in  the  state,  and  I  think  we  are  get- 
ting all  we  ought  to  have  from  them  at  the  present  time.  There 
is  no  difficulty  in  assessing  the  tax  under  the  present  law,  and 
there  is  no  necessity  for  the  change.  Now,  I  will  explain  to 
you  where  this  resolution  is  bad.  You  take,  for  example,  the 
Manchester  Traction,  Light  &  Power  Company.  At  the  present 
time  they  own  property  in  the  city  of  Concord,  in  the  town 
of  Bow,  in  Pembroke,  in  Hooksett,  and  in  Manchester  and  Goffs- 
town,  and  these  cities  and  towns  receive  a  tax  upon  its  prop- 
erty. The  town  of  Hooksett  assesses  a  tax  against  the  Man- 
chester Traction,  Light  &  Power  Company  on  a  valuation  of 
$205,000  for  the  property  in  that  town.  In  the  town  of  Hook- 
sett the  company  gets  an  income  from  the  town  for  lights. 
The  Manchester  Traction,  Light  &  Power  Company  gets  an  in- 
come from  the  town  of  Pembroke;  they  get  a  great  income  out 
of  the  city  of  Manchester.  Where  the  dam  is  located,  which  is 
in  Concord  and  Bow,  they  get  no  income  whatever,  but  you 
can  readily  see  that  a  great  part  of  their  property  is  at  the 
location  of  their  dam.  The  city  of  Concord  gets  a  large  tax 
from  the  Manchester  Traction,  Light  &  Power  Company;  the 
town  of  Bow  gets  a  larger  tax,  and  it  belongs  to  them. 

Now,  take  another  example:  We  have  the  Concord  Light  & 
Power  Company  in  the  city  of  Concord.  Its  property  is  ail 
located  in  the  city  of  Concord.  Its  income  comes  from  the  city 
of  Concord.  We  get  a  large  tax  from  that  property  in  the 
city  of  Concord.  Should  this  resolution  pass  'and  be  adopted, 
and  the  legislature  authorize  the  assessment  of  taxes  against 
these  public  service  corporations  on  the  theory  of  their  income, 
every  dollar  of  that  tax  would  go  into  the  treasury  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  not  one  dollar  into  the  cities  and  towns. 
I  can  go  through  the  state  and  I  can  cite  other  cases.  The 
Franklin  Light  &  Power  Company  is  located  in  the  city  of 
Franklin  and  in  the  town  of  Sanbornton.  Each  gets  a  tax  upon 
its  local  property,  as  it  should. 

There  is  no  call,  there  is  no  necessity  for  any  amendment  of 
this  kind,  none  whatever.  These  corporations  will  be  taxed 
every  dollar  they  can  stand,  and  every  dollar  they  can  afford 
to  pay  under  our  present  system,  and  that  is  enough.  Now, 
I  will  not  support  any  measure  which  takes  one  dollar  from 
the  city  and  town  taxes  and  puts  it  into  the  state  treasury. 
The  state  treasury  today  has  sufficient  funds,  if  economioallv 
administered,  and  spent,  to  support  the  state  government,  and 
no  state  tax  should  be  levied  at  all.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  fat- 
ting up  the  state  treasury  'at  the  expense  of  the  cities  and 
towns.     This  resolution  should  be  killed  unanimously. 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  487 

Now,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  certain  fact.  Per- 
haps you  may  think  I  am  a  little  raw.  Sometimes  I  am.  Bear 
in  mind  that  the  gentlemen  from  Landaff  and  Jaffrey,— thejje 
two  gentlemen,— have  not  introduced  and  supported  a  single 
measure  which  has  passed  this  body  this  session,  and  this  is 
one  of  their  measures,  which  isn't  needed.  There  is  no  reason 
why  the  state  can  tax  public  service  corporations  any  better 
by  taxing  their  incomes  than  by  taxing  their  property  locally 
in  the  towns  where  it  belongs. 

Now,  don't  jeopardize  the  tax  of  the  towns  for  the  mere 
whim  of  the  young  politicians. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff.—^ir.  President,  I  never  have  asked  this 
Convention  to  vote  against  or  for  any  measure  for  personal 
reasons,  and  when  the  time  comes,  Sir,  when  I  have  no  better 
argument  to  offer  against  a  measure  than  a  slur  upon  the  man 
who  introduced  it,  I  will  keep  my  mouth  shut. 

This  particular  amendment  was  drawn  by  the  eminent  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Judge  Mitchell.  I  will  try  to  explain 
why  this  measure  is  necessary.  I  have  spoken  before  on  this 
subject  several  times.  It  seems  I  have  never  been  able  to  make 
myself  clear  to  some  gentlemen.  I  will  state  exactly  what  the 
facts  are  today  about  the  taxing  of  public  service  corporations. 
The  only  method  under  which  the  state  can  now  tax  the  public 
service  corporation  is  to  get  its  property  value,  its  actual  cash 
value,  and  tax  that  at  the  average  rate  of  taxation  throughout 
the  state. 

Now,  what  is  the  practical  result  of  such  a  method?  In  the 
first  place,  there  are  not  ten  men  or  twenty  men  in  this  body, 
whether  they  are  railroad  men,  express  men,  or  telephone  men, 
who  can  go  over  the  property  of  a  public  service  corporation 
and  tell  what  it  is  worth.  What  is  the  property  of  the  Ameri- 
can Express  Company  worth, — its  actual  property?  It  does 
practically  all  its  business  on  the  property  of  the  railroad.  Its 
chief  asset  of  value  is  an  exclusive  contract  with  the  railroad 
that  it  will  do  its  express  business.  Now,  is  there  any  man  who 
can  measure  the  value  of  that  property  as  he  can  assess  the 
value  of  a  piece  of  real  estate,  or  a  horse,  or  a  cow?  The  rail- 
road is  exactly  in  the  same  situation.  No  man  knows  what  it 
is  worth.  You  can  walk  the  ties  from  Coos  to  Nashua  for 
months  and  you  cannot  tell  what  it  is  worth. 

Now,  year  after  3^ear  the  railroads  have  appealed  from  the 
assessment  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  and  the  Tax 
Commission.  There  are,  I  believe,  three  appeals  of  the  Grand 
Trunk  pending  now.  There  were  at  the  last  session  of  the  leg- 
islature two  appeals  of  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad.     In  these 


488     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

appeal  cases  the  state  and  the  railroad  have  to  go  into  this 
question,  not  merely  what  the  value  of  the  railroad  is,  its  actual 
cash  value, — that  is  a  difficult  problem, — they  have  to  go  into 
the  question  of  the  assessment  and  value  of  every  other  bit  of 
property  in  the  state  of  New^  Hampshire,  in  order  to  get  the 
true  average  rate.  These  two  cases  were  settled  by  the  legis- 
lature. In  the  hearing  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
the  Attorney-General  said,  while  he  thought  the  state  had  a 
good  case,  the  expenses  of  the  litigation  would  be  so  tre- 
mendous, it  would  be  good  judgment  to  grant  them  $50,000 
discount.  The  counsel  for  the  railroad  told  us  that  up  to  that 
time  the  railroad  had  expended  $75,000  in  the  preparation  and 
trial  of  that  one  case. 

Now,  if  that  case  had  been  finally  decided,  it  would  have 
established  no  principle,  no  precedent  whatever;  it  would  have 
merely  decided  whether  that  particular  levy  for  that  particular 
year  was  too  high  or  too  low,  and  the  same  question  might  be 
raised  the  next  year,  and  the  year  after,  and  every  year  for 
years  to  come.  We  have  had  a  series  of  expensive  litigations 
with  public  service  corporations  that  have  been  of  no  benefit  to 
the  state.  The  fear  of  this  litigation  has  always  acted  as  a 
pressure,  a  force,  upon  the  board  assessing  railroads  to  keep 
the  valuation  low.  That  is  an  unfortunate  situation  for  any 
Board  of  Assessors  to  be  in. 

Now,  do  not  forget  one  thing — you  have  not  only  to  pay  the 
state's  expenses  for  all  this  litigation,  but  in  the  long  run  you 
have  to  pay  all  the  expenses  that  the  public  service  corporations 
are  put  to.  This  is  a  part  of  their  operating  expenses,  and  the 
principle  which  has  been  established  is  that  the  railroad  and 
public  service  corporations  shall  be  allowed  to  charge  enough 
to  pay  all  their  operating  expenses,  and  have  a  good,  fair 
revenue  left  over.  So  you  and  I,  when  we  ride  on  the  railroad, 
and  pay  freight,  are  paying  part  of  the  expenses  of  the  rail- 
road in  the  tax  litigation.  Do  you  want  that  thing  to  con- 
tinue as  it  has  continued  for  years?  Now,  the  only  method  of 
taxing  the  public  service  corporations  that  is  practicable,  that 
is  fair,  that  is  easy  and  sensible,  is  to  tax  them  on  the  basis 
of  their  gross  income,  and  it  is  done  in  a  great  many  other 
states  in  this  Union.  It  is  done  in  Vermont.  You  have  a  fair 
basis   of  taxation  and  you  get  rid  of  this  continual  litigation. 

The  most  important  thing  in  taxing  public  service  corpora- 
tions is  to  get  a  fair  tax  and  keep  it,  and  get- it  easy,  and  know 
what  you  are  going  to  get,  because  in  the  long  run  the  taxes 
are  distributed  on  the  public. 

In  regard  to  taking  money  away  from  the  state  treasury,  I 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  489-' 

dispute  the  statement  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord.  He  is 
absolutely  misinformed,  and  if  you  are  not  satisfied  with  my 
statement  of  what  the  law  is  on  the  subject,  I  should  like  tO' 
hear  from  other  more  eminent  and  abler  lawyers  than  I  am. 
I  want  to  state  exactly  what  I  understand  the  position  of  the 
Legislative  Committee  to  be.  This  amendment  was  introduced 
here  as  a  result  of  a  motion  of  mine  that  the  Committee  recom- 
mend it.  It  was  not  introduced  here  at  my  request.  I  did 
not  need  the  permission  of  the  Committee  to  get  this  amend- 
ment before  the  Convention.  I  could  have  offered  it  as  an 
amendment  to  the  resolution  which  we  adopted  yesterday  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Legislative  Committee,  and  they  know 
it.  The  motion  was  put  that  this  resolution  be  reported  and 
reported  favorably,  and  the  majority  of  the  Committee  voted  for 
it,  and  I  so  understood  it. 

Now,  another  thing:  I  believe  this  is  necessary  on  account 
of  the  situation  in  regard  to  the  savings  banks.  As  I  stated 
yesterday,  the  Grand  Trunk  Railway  has  already  raised  that 
question.  If  decided  against  the  state,  it  would  mean  a  large 
reduction  in  the  taxes  which  we  assess  on  the  public  service 
corporations,  and  a  reduction  which  we  would  be  powerless  to 
prevent.  Now,  if  we  want  to  avoid  that  danger  and  avoid  the 
further  danger  that  these  taxes  which  are  covered  in  the  amend- 
ment we  adopted  yesterday  might  be  figured  in  making  that 
rate  lower,  the  only  safe  way  is  to  adopt  this  amendment, 
Resolution  No.  59. 

Mr.  Oahes  of  Lisbon. — I  should  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Landaff  one  question.  Does  the  gentleman  understand  that 
the  word,  "proportional,"  applies  to  this  assessment?  If  so, 
how? 

The  President.— Can  the  gentleman  from  Landaff  answer  that 
question? 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landnff.— Mr.  President,  I  would  rather  ask  the 
Supreme  Court  that  question.  I  think  it  would  apply  to  thl» 
extent,  that  all  public  service  corporations  that  are  taxed  upon 
the  basis  of  their  gross  or  net  incomes  must  be  taxed  equally. 
You  could  not  put  some  corporations  on  a  two  percent  basis, 
and  another  corporation  on  a  five  percent  basis. 

Mr.  Dean  of  Danbury.—l  wish  to  make  an  inquiry,  and  it 
strikes  me  there  is  possibly  one  objection  to  this  resolution  as  it 
at  present  stands.  I  believe  the  features  are  right.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Newport  said  it  was  carefully  drawn  by  Judge 
Mitchell.  Now,  the  amendment  speaks  of  public  service  cor- 
porations, and  we  have  sent  back  the  resolution  for  the  amend- 
ment on  the  ground  that  it  excludes  express  companies.     This 


490      Journal  of  Constitutjonal  Convention. 

seems  to  be  open  to  the  same  objection.     We  want  to  consider 
it.     It  seems  that   this   should  go   in. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  LondondaTy. — I  don't  believe  I  can  be  accused 
of  having  been  unfair,  in  the  statements  I  have  made,  to  the 
gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  or  in  the  votes  I  have 
east. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a  very  unjust  measure,  that  it 
may  work  out  great  injustice,  and  I  want  to  call  to  your  at- 
may  work  out  great  injustice,  and  1  want  to  call  to  your  atten- 
tion for  just  one  moment  a  situation  that  migh  have  arisen, 
pass.  It  is  on  the  gross  incomes.  Now,  you  know.  Gentlemen, 
that  the  gross  income  of  a  railroad,  or  any  other  public  service 
corporation,  may  be  great  and  still  unprofitable.  You  know 
on  a  small  road  it  may  be  sm-all  and  still  be  very  profitable, 
and  it  seems  to  me  you  are  going  to  get  into  a  situation  where 
there  will  be  no  justice.  Take  in  the  days  that  are  past,  when 
the  old  Concord  &  Montreal  sold  for  five  dollars  a  share, 
and  the  Concord  road  was  earning  big  dividends,  and  you  would 
tax  that  longer  road,  earning  perhaps  more  money  in  the  gross, 
you  would  tax  that  on  its  gross  income, — and  you  would  tax 
the  other  profitable  road  on  its  gross  income  just  the  same;  and 
you  would  do,  it  seems  to  me,  a  great  injustice.  I  cannot  see 
how,  unless  the  assessors,  or  the  taxing  power,  take  into  con- 
sideration the  earning  power,  the  net  earning  power,  or  what 
it  is  worth  to  the  men  who  own  the  stock,  and  what  it  is  wortE 
to  the  people  who  built  it,  you  are  going  to  get  a  fair  and  just 
system  of  taxation.  I  believe  this  would  be  unjust,  as  unjust 
as  another  illustration:  Supposing  you  own  two  buildings  in 
the  town  where  you  live  that  cost  you  $100,000  apiece.  One 
pays  you  a  dividend  of  ten  thousand  a  year  from  its  location 
and  from  the  fact  that  it  will  rent.  The  other  hardly  pays  the 
taxes — and  are  yen  going  to  tax  them  both  upon  their  gross 
income?  It  costs  so  much  to  run  one, — you  have  your  elevator 
system,  you  have  your  janitors,  you  are  running  it  at  a 
gteat  expense.  The  other  you  are  able  to  run  without  jani- 
tors, without  elevators;  you  are  able  to  run  it  without  a  large 
heating  apparatus,  and  you  are  getting  the  same  income  from 
both,  and  tax  them  on  the  gross  income.  Now,  it  is  unjust  to 
your  railroad;  it  is  unjust  in  both  situations,  and  it  seems 
to  me  we  had  better  stand  by  the  old  theory. 

I  think  this  is  a  public  question.  It  is  not  a  question  that 
has  been  fully  discussed,  and  so  fully  discussed  that  it  should 
be  submitted  to  the  voters  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Berlin. — I  will  speak  only  a  minute.  I  am 
somewhat  surprised  at  the  attempt  that  is  being  made  to  ob- 
scure the  real  issue  by  attempting  to  go  into  the  business  of 


Fkiday,  June  21,  1912.  491 

public  service  corporations,  which  it  seems  to  me  is  clearly 
foreign  to  any  issue  raised  by  this  amendment.  This  amend- 
ment authorizes  the  legislature  to  fix  the  rate  of  taxation,  also 
the  property  that  is  to  be  subject  to  that  rate.  It  leaves  the 
matter  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature.  In  other  words, 
it  gives  the  legislature  the  right  to  tax  incomes;  that  is,  it 
authorizes  the  legislature  to  tax  incomes  instead  of  follow- 
ing the  old  method  now  in  use.  This  whole  subject  is  left 
with  the  legislature  when  the  tax  is  collected.  I  cannot  see 
why  it  should  not  be  disbursed  as  it  is  now.  If  the  amend- 
ment is  passed,  I  cannot  see  where  the  state  treasury  is  going 
to  be  benefited.  I  cannot  see  where  the  towns  and  cities  are 
going  to  be  injured.     I  hope  the  resolution  will  pass. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester. — I  am  not  going  to  engage  in  any 
discussion  of  this  question  because  we  have  listened  to  it  ever 
since  the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  and  I  must  admit,  after 
all  these  arguments,  I  don't  know  anything  about  It.  I  don't 
think  there  is  anybody  that  knows  any  more  about  it  than  I, 
and  evidently  those  who  have  presented  this  measure  don't 
seem  to  give  us  much  enlightenment. 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  vote  on  the 
resolution  be  taken  at  12  o'clock. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Commit- 
tee,— 

Mr.  Stone  of  Anclover. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  think  in  every  vote  that  has  been  taken  in  this 
Convention,  w^ith  one  exception,  I  have  voted  against  the  gen- 
tleman from  Landaff,  but  upon  this  proposition  I  am  certainly 
with  him,  and  I  want  to  speak  in  line  with  the  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Sullivan.  There  isn't  the  slightest  suggestion  of  gross  in- 
come in  this  resolution,  and  all  the  arguments  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  this  amendment  are  arguments  fitted  solely  to  be 
addressed  to  the  legislature  when  a  bill  is  before  them  to  be 
enacted  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  amendment  to  the 
Constitution.  They  may  never  carry  it  out.  It  only  gives  them 
permission  to  tax  public  service  corporations.  I  want  to  get  a 
step  further.  I  don't  want  to  ask  for  an  amendment,  but 
I  would  cut  out  the  words,  "public  service,"  and  leave 
the  word,  "corporations,*'  only,  because  I  have  no  sympathy 
with  the  attacks  that  have  been  made  on  certain  corporations. 


492    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

And  I  think,  on  a  broad  and  general  ground,  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire  should  have  a  right  to  protect  themselves  on 
any  matters  of  legislation,  and  see  that  corporations  pay  their 
fair  tax,  and  I  don't  refer  necessarily  to  the  railroad,  or  the 
express  companies.  They  are  not  the  only  ones  in  our  local 
affairs.  Big  corporations  of  this  state  have  for  years  asked 
for  exemption  from  taxation,  and  they  have  obtained  it,  and 
they  have  not  been  taxed,  as  our  Tax  Commission  shows,  any- 
where near  their  fair  value.  Bear  in  mind  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  this  resolution  that  suggests  whether  it  should  be  gross 
or  net  income;  it  simplj^  leaves  the  whole  subject  to  the  legis- 
lature to  decide  whether  they  can  find  a  way  by  which  the  cor- 
porations can  pay  their  fair  burden  of  the  taxes  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  do  not  rise  to  discuss  the  merits  of  this  measure. 
As  my  name  has  been  associated  with  the  drafting  of  this  reso- 
lution, as  it  stands,  it  is  due  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  the 
gentlemen  of  the  Committee  and  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion, who  have  so  generously  listened  to  me  when  I  desired 
to  submit  some  suggestions  upon  pending  questions,  that  my  re- 
lation to  the  resolution  should  be  stated.  The  Convention  will 
recall  that  during  the  discussion  of  the  tax  resolutions  I  sug- 
gested that  I  was  in  favor  of  a  general  income  tax  provision. 
And  I  stated  my  reasons  for  it. 

The  Committee,  in  its  deliberations,  the  Convention  confirming 
their  action,  did  not  accede  to  that  proposition  to  the  full 
extent  proposed  in  Resolution  No.  37;  and,  as  the  conclu- 
sion was  reached  in  the  Committee,  the  gentleman  from  Lan- 
daff  made  the  suggestion  with  respect  to  this  proposition.  He 
and  the  Committee  generously  asked  me  how,  if  the 
proposition  was  to  be  adopted,  it  could  be  framed  so  as  to 
become  practicable,  through  appropriate  legislation,  and  how 
it  could  be  framed  so  as  to  answer  the  necessary  constitutional 
requirements  involved;  and,  hurriedly,  I  drafted  this; 
and  I  think  the  resolution  as  it  comes  in  here  has  every 
word  as  I  penned  it  myself.  Of  course,  my  understanding  as 
to  the  object  sought  was  this:  To  give  the  legislature  per- 
mission to  substitute  the  indirect  method  of  taxing  the  in- 
come on  public  service  corporations  rather  than  the  direct, 
which  has  become,  as  has  been  related,  pretty  troublesome  in 
the  effort  to  arrive  at  some  definite  and  satisfactory  result.  I 
did  not  understand  that  the  object  was  to  abolish  the  appli- 
cation of  the  proportional  rule,  or  tbat  any  different  results 
were  justified  under  this  proposed  provision  of  the  Constitution 


FfiiDAY,  June  21,  1912.  493 

than  would  be  reached  and  justified  through  the  direct  method. 
In  other  words,  as  stated  in  the  resolution,  the  indirect  method 
of  taxation  of  incomes  was  to  be  substituted  for  the  direct  tax- 
ation of  the  properties,  on  account  of  its  practical  convenience 
and  practicability.  That  was  all.  I  did  not  then  under- 
stand, nor  did  anyone  then  understand,  so  far  as  I  know, 
that  it  was  open  to  the  objection  that  the  tax  imposed  was  not 
to  be  apportioned  and  distributed  as  it  is  at  the  present  time, 
and  'as  it  should  be.  Of  course,  the  object  in  the  form  adopted 
was  to  be  brief;  but  in  my  experience  I  have  found  that  brevity, 
so  very  desirable,  often  leads  to  obscurity  instead  of  clearness. 
And  I  now  find  a  good  many  very  intelligent,  honest  and  well 
disposed  gentlemen  in  doubt  with  reference  to  what  this  really 
means.  Therefore  I  feel  that,  having  been  employed  as  the 
architect,  it  is  my  duty  to  perfect  the  plan  so  we  can  see  ex- 
actly what  it  means.  I  did  not  understand  that  any  different 
result  was  to  be  reached  in  this  method  than  through  the  other 
method,  either  in  the  distribution  of  the  taxes  or  in  the  result 
of  the  'assessment.  I  am  confident  that  it  should  reach  the 
same  result  attained  through  the  direct. 

In  order  to  come  within  the  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution, — that  Constitution 
which  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, — we  must  see  to  it  that 
our  Constitution,  and  law  thereunder,  conforms  to  the  require- 
ments of  that  amendment.  It  has  been  held  by  the  Supreme 
Court  that  this  amendment,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Federal  Constitution,  while  originally  understood  to  contemplate 
only  the  protection  of  the  colored  man,  now  includes  and  pro- 
tects the  rights  of  the  white  man  as  well,  and  includes  and 
protects  the  rights  of  the  artificial  being,  the  corporation,  with 
respect  to  matters  of  taxation,  as  well  as  the  rights  of  the 
natural  person,  colored  or  white.  Under  this  amendment,  every 
person,  natural  or  artificial,  is  entitled  to  the  equal  protection 
of  the  law;  and  this,  it  has  been  held,  means,  with  respect  to 
taxation,  that  the  corporation,  as  well  as  the  natural  person, 
shall  be  taxed  upon  a  basis  of  proportion  and  equality.  There- 
fore, a  provision  in  our  Constitution,  in  order  to  stand  the  test 
of  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  must  accord  to 
«ach  individual  due  process  of  law  and  the  equal  protection 
of  the  law. 

To  avoid  all  possible  question,  and  to  make  clear  what  was 
intended,  as  I  supposed,  I  suggest  an  'amendment  to  the  propo- 
sition as  it  now  stands. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  offered  the  following  amendment 


494    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

to  Kesolution  No.  59,  Relating  to  the  Taxation  of  Public 
Service  Corporations: — 

Amend  by  adding  thereto  the  following  words: — "But  the 
tax  assessed  upon  such  incomes  shall  not  be  greater  or  less 
than  it  would  be  if  assessed  upon  the  property  of  the  cor- 
poration, and  the  apportionment  and  distribution  to  the  sev- 
eral towns  and  cities  of  their  share  of  the  taxes  shall  be  the 
same  as  it  would  be  if  assessed  upon  the  property  of  the  cor- 
poration/' 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Mitchell 
of  Concord, — 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — Now  to  me  that  seems  plain;  the 
other  did.  To  you  it  may  not  seem  as  plain.  I  have  found  in 
my  practice  in  attempting  to  administer  the  law  that  equally 
intelligent  men  differ  about  what  phrases  and  words  mean. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — May  I  ask  one  question  of  Judge 
Mitchell? 

The  President. — Does  the  gentleman  from  Concord  yield  to  the 
gentleman  from  Pittsfield? 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — I  do. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — I  would  ask  if  this  amendment,  or 
resolution,  is  adopted,  will  it  take  away  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature to  assess  the  tax  in  the  way  it  is  now,  if  they  see  fit, 
or  can  they  use  their  discretion  in  assessing  it  the  old  way,  or 
on  the  income? 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — My  answer  to  that  proposition,  Mr. 
President,  is  that  both  methods  would  exist.  This  simply  pro- 
vides an  additional  method,  while  it  would  not  extinguish  the 
present  method. 

Mr.  Drake  of  Pittsfield. — Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — At  the  present  time  the  railroad  tax, 
for  instance,  is  apportioned  and  distributed  to  the  several  towns 
in  this  way:  One  fourth  of  it  goes  to  the  towms  through  which 
the  railroads  are  constructed,  depending  upon  the  amount  of 
money  invested  in  the  construction  of  the  roads  in  those  towns. 
That  disposes  of  twenty-five  percent  of  it.  The  balance  of  it 
goes  to  the  towns  in  which  the  stockholders  reside,  and  they 
take  it  in  proportion  to  the  whole  stock  of  the  corporation. 
After  exhausting  that  amount,  then  come  the  stockholders 
who  reside  in  Maine  or  Massachusetts  or  Vermont,  or  else- 
where. The  tax  on  that,  proportionally,  goes  to  the  state  treas- 
ury, and  that  is  all.     Now,  in  this  amendment  it  indicates  the 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  495 

purpose  of  this  body  that  the  legislature  shall  pursue  the  same 
course  with  respect  to  that,  and,  if  I  have  made  myself  under- 
stood, Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  that 
is  all  I  care  to  say, 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook. — The  purpose  and  object  of  the  pend- 
ing bill  or  amendment,  as  I  understand  it,  is  to  simplify  the 
method  of  taxing-  this  kind  of  property,  and  to  avoid  the  neces- 
sity of  attempting  to  obtain  an  appraisal  of  the  same  at  its 
actual  cash  value,  experience  having  shown  this  to  be  imprac- 
ticable, if  not  impossible.  But  this  proposed  amendment  to  the 
resolution  declares  that  the  assessment  shall  not  in  any  case  be 
greater  or  less  than  it  would  be  if  the  tax  were  imposed  as  a 
direct  tax  on  the  property.  Whether  the  tax  imposed,  in  any 
given  case,  is  greater  or  less  than  a  direct  tax  could  be  ascer- 
tained only  by  having  a  full  and  complete  appraisal  of  the  prop- 
erty at  its  cash  value.  Such  an  appraisal,  we  are  told,  is  diffi- 
cult, if  not  impossible,  to  obtain.  Consequently  this  proposefl 
amendment  opens  up  this  whole  matter  for  controversy  and 
litigation,  and  thereby  defeats  the  primary  purpose  of  the 
principal  amendment.  Therefore  I  believe  we  should  vote  ir 
down. 

Mr.  Boynton  of  Portsmouth. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  1 
am  opposed  to  this  amendment.  The  amendment  originally 
drawn  was  to  eliminate  the  trouble  'and  controversy  arising 
from  the  appraisal  of  railroad  and  other  corporate  property  to 
obtain  its  true  value  in  cash. 

Now,  the  amendment  is  in  the  way  of  legislation,  and  is 
simply  a  method  that  was  criticised  by  the  Legislative  Com- 
mittee in  relation  to  the  income  tax  that  you  have  considered 
before,  and  should  not  be  attached  to  this  measure.  You  may 
safely  leave  the  distribution  of  this  tax  to  the  representatives 
of  the  towns  and  cities.  They  will  act  fairly  for  their  own 
community,    every  single   time. 

Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote 
whereby  the  Convention  agreed  to  take  a  vote  at  12  o'clock. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Mitchell  of  Con- 
cord,— 

Mr.  Broderick  of  Manchester. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  I  have  refrained  from  attempting  to  discuss 
this   question  of  taxation,  after  we  got   out  of  the   domain  of 


496    JouFwNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

fundamental  principles,  because  I  am  absolutely  convinced  that 
its  discussion  requires  a  degree  of  expertness  that  vfery  few  per- 
sons have.  I  should  have  been  very  much  pleased  to  have  left 
this  whole  matter  of  the  method  of  taxation  to  a  Committee 
composed  of  the  g-entleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  the  gentle- 
man from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  the  gentleman  from  Concord, 
Mr.  Allen  Hollis,  and  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell, 
because  I  am  convinced  that  they  principally  represent  the 
greatest  degree  of  knowledge  and  skill  that  there  is  in  this  Con- 
vention upon  the  question.  But  perhaps  that  is  not  a  feasible 
proposition,  Gentlemen,  and  hence  I  feel  obliged  to  discuss  the 
amendment  now  before  us,  presented  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell. 

It  is  based  upon  the  suggestion  that  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  would  be  in  viola- 
tion of  our  Federal  Constitution.  That  very  proposition  oc- 
curred to  me  last  night,  and  I  took  occasion  to  investigate  it. 
and  with  great  diffidence,  because  of  the  source  from  which 
the  opposite  opinion  comes.  I  am  compelled  to  say  that  my 
investigation  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  not  any- 
thing in  the  Federal  Constitution  which  prevents  the  system 
of  taxation  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr. 
Stevens.  If  the  amendment  suggested  by  Mr.  Mitchell  is  add- 
ed on  to  the  Stevens  amendment,  we  have  placed  ourselves  back 
into  the  position  from  which  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Stevens 
tends  to  extricate  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  Our  difficulty 
now  is  that  the  physical  valuation  of  railroads  is  an  absolute 
impossibility.  Men  who  have  written  upon  that  subject,  men 
who  have  investigated  it  everywhere,  and  have  given  it  investi- 
gation that  is  not  possible  for  an  assemblage  of  this  kind,  in 
describing  the  difficulties,  call  it  "superhuman,"  "impossible," 
"counting  the  stars,"  and  the  like.  It  is  an  actual  fact  that  it 
is  not  a  possibility  to  arrive  at  anything  like  a  definite  estimate 
even  of  the  value  of  the  properties  of  public  service  corpora- 
tions, and  that  is  the  very  difficulty,— that  is  the  difficulty  that 
creates  the  difficulties  under  which  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire is  laboring.  It  is  not  possible,  no  matter  how  much 
conscientiousness  and  scrupulousness  is  brought  to  the  task 
to  accurately  value  the  property  of  public  service  corporation??. 
Any  ten  men  you  will  appoint  will  arrive  at  ten  diverse  con- 
clusions as  far  apart  as  it  is  possible  to  imagine.  If  we  settle 
this  question  right,  we  shall  not  adopt  the  resolution  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  tliv» 
Convention,  before  adopting  this  proposed  amendment,  let   us 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  497 

see  where  we  stand  with  relation  to  it.  The  opponents  "oi  the 
original  resolution  say  that  if  it  is  adopted  it  puts  it  wfthin 
the  power  of  the  legislature  to  take  away  from  towns  their 
proportion  of  the  taxes  now  derived  from  the  taxation  of  this 
class  of  property.  They  also  say  that  the  taxes  on  the  property 
of  public  service  corporations  will  not  be  proportionate  if  as- 
sessed in  accordance  with  the  original  resolution. 

The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  has  proposed  an 
amendment  to  the  original  resolution  which  is  calculated  to 
obviate  these  objections.  Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  in  favor 
of  the  original  resolution  say  that  if  the  Mitchell  amendment 
is  adopted  we  will  then  revert  right  back  to  the  original  situ- 
ation, and  the  property  of  public  service  corporations  will  be 
taxed  practically  on  the  same  basis  as  it  is  now  taxed.  This 
may  be  true.  But,  if  we  adopt  the  resolution  as  first  proposed, 
the  question  arises  whether  or  not  the  word,  "proportional," 
as  now  found  in  the  Constitution,  applies  to  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Landaff,  Mr.  Stevens,  is  unable  to  an- 
swer this  question.  I  certainly  cannot  answer  it.  If  it  does 
apply,  well  and  good.  If  it  does  not  apply,  then  we  do  not  want 
the  public  service  corporations  of  this  state  taxed  out  of  pro- 
portion to  other  property  in  the  state,  and  certf^jnly  the  resolu- 
tion ought  not  to  be  adopted.  In  any  event,  the  friends  and  foes 
of  the  original  resolution  do  not  agree  upon  the  interpretation 
of  it.  They  cannot  agree  as  to  whether  the  word,  "propor- 
tional," applies. 

The  consequence  of  adopting  the  resolution  without  m 
amendment  will  be  that  a  case  will  have  to  be  drawn  and  passed 
to  the  Supreme  Court  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  our  work. 
Perhaps  the  Convention  wants  to  pass  some  such  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  but  we  would  certainly  like  to  know  what 
we  are  doing.  It  is  up  to  the  Convention  to  say  whether  it 
wants  to  take  a  step  in  the  dark  and  adopt  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  when  its  advocates  and  opponents  cannot  agree 
upon  its  interpretation. 

I  am  not  now  saying  whether  I  am  in  favor  or  against  some 
such  resolution  rightly  drawn,  but  I  am  simply  putting  the 
question  to  you  to  say  whether  or  not  you  want  to  propose  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  such  that  it  will  be  necessary 
at  once  to  take  steps  to  ascertain  its  interpretation  from  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  state. 

Mr.  Allen  Hollis  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  if  this  ^amendment  now  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  is  adopted,  I  hope  every- 
"body  will  vote  against  the  measure  as  so  amended,  because  it 


498      JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

amounts  to  doing  something  in  the  first  part  of  thp  amend- 
ment, and  undoing  it  in  the  last  part.  I  am  not  willing  to  put 
myself  in  that  absurd  position.  I  hope  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Mitchell  will  be  rejected,  because  it  defeats  the 
whole  object  of  the  proposed  constitutional  amendment. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Mitchell  was 
rejected. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation 
of  the  Committee  that  the  Convention  agree  to  the  proposed 
amendment, — 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff. — It  has  been  brought  to  the  attention 
of  the  Convention,  and  to  my  attention  a  little  while  ago,  that 
some  of  the  express  companies  are  voluntary  associations,  and 
in  some  jurisdictions  and  some  Courts  they  have  escaped  certain 
laws  because  they  are  not  corporations. 

The  President. — Discussion  is  out  of  order  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by 
inserting  after  ih^  words,  "public  service  corporations,"  in 
the  third  line  of  the  resolution,  the  words,  "and  upon  volun- 
tary associations  doing  a  public  service  business,"  and  in- 
serting after  the  words,  "such  corporations,"  in  the  fifth  line 
of  the  resolution,  the  wo,rds,  "and  voluntary  associations," 
so  that  the  said  section  as  amended  shall  read  as  follows: — 

Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 
.other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
when  passing  by  will  or  inheritance ;  and  there  shall  be  a  valu- 
ation of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in 
every  five  years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  General 
Court  shall  order;  and  the  General  Court  in  imposing  a  tax 
upon  public  service  corporations  and  upon  voluntary  asso- 
ciations doing  a  public  service  business,  shall  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  of  such  cor- 
porations and  voluntary  associations  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax 
upon  their  property. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stevens  of  Landaff 
to  amend, — 


Fkiday  June  21.  1912.  499 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee,  as  amended, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Clifford  of  Franklin  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  the  President  declared  the  vote  mani- 
festly in  the  affirmative  and  the  resolution  as  amended  was 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  moved  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  ptirpose  of 
considering  all  resolutions  relating  to  the  future  mode  of 
amending  the  Constitution,  the  same  being, — 

Eesolution  No.  3,  Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending 
the  Constitution. 

Eesolution  No.  11,  Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending 
the  Constitution. 

Eesolution  No.  16,  Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending 
the  Constitution. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

(Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke  in  the  Chair.) 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford, 
•that  the  Committee  recommend  that  Eesolution  No.  11,  Ee- 
lating to  Future  Mode   of  Amending  the   Constitution,  be 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention, — 

Mr.  Newell  of  Surry.— Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Com- 
mittee, I  was  mneh  interested  in  what  was  said  by  the  g-entle- 
man  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman.    He  referred  to  the  fact  that 


600    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convejs'tion. 

this  matter  had  been  brought  up  by  previous  Convientions.  I 
was  a  member  of  the  Convention  of  1889,  and  this  same  amend- 
ment was  proposed  to  that  Convention  by  a  gentleman  from 
Concord  by  the  name  of  Hadley.  It  was  considered  in  >a.  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  (but  it  reported  inexpedient  to  amend  as 
proposed),  and  was  discussed  by  such  eminent  men  as  the  late 
Judge  Isaac  W.  Smith  of  Manchester,  and  the  late  Judge  William 
S.  Ladd  of  Lancaster.  I  w-as  much  interested  in  the  discus- 
sion that  took  place  at  that  time. 

Before  making  so  radical  a  change  in  the  method  of  amend- 
ing our  Constitution,  we  should  consider  how  this  method  has 
operated  in  other  states  which  have  ^adopted  it,  according  to 
this  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester. 
Mr.  Cavanaugh.  Has  it  not  been  the  tendency  in  the  different 
states  that  have  adopted  this  method  to  lumber  up  their  Con- 
stitutions with  statutory  provisions.  It  is  said  that  in  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania,  which  has  a  similar  method  of  amending  its 
Constitution,  that  it  is  hard  to  tell  which  is  constitutional  and 
which  is*  statutory  law.  Now,  Gentlemen,  is  it  not  true  that 
a  body  elected  as  this  body  is  elected  is  more  able  to  deal  with 
such  an  important  question  as  amending  the  organic  law  of 
our  state  than  a  legislature  which  has  numerous  other  questions 
to  deal  with?  It  is  true  that  the  towns  choosing  members  to 
such  a  body  as  this  usually  elect  their  best  men,  and  that  a 
Constitutional  Convention  contains  more  men  of  experience 
and  ability  than  the  average  legislature.  And  another  fact  j^ 
true,  that  outside  influences  are  not  so  potential  in  a  Consti- 
tutional Convention  as  in  a  legislature,  and  at  this  time  I  fe«^l 
like  repeating,  or  quoting,  what  was  said  by  the  eminent  Judge 
William  S.  Ladd  of  Lancaster  in  1889,  "that  the  Constitution  of 
New  Hampshire  ought  never  to  be  in  the  hands  of  a  body  with 
a  lobby  at  its  doors." 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  refrained  dur- 
ing this  session  from  expressing  any  opinion  before  the  Com- 
mittee upon  any  subject  which  has  been  before  it,  but  in  the 
Convention  of  1902  I  was  a  member  of  the  Committee  which 
had  this  subject  in  charge,  antd  I  find  in  the  record,  when  this 
same  proposition  was  before  the  Convention  of  1902,  the  fol- 
lowing remarks,  which  I  want  to  read: 

"I  know  of  no  lamp  to  guide  my  feet  but  the  lamp  of  experi- 
ence. I  h-ave  been  taught  to  believe,  and  do  believe,  that  th*^ 
Constitution  of  this  state  is  the  foundation  upon  which  rest 
all  of  our  institutions  and  all  of  our  rights.  I  believe  that  that 
foundation  should  be  as  firm  and  as  secure  as  possible,  that  it 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  501 

should  be  protected  against  frequent  changes,  and,  what  is 
equally  as  important,  that  it  should  be  protected  against  con- 
tinuous assaults. 

"I  believe  if  we  should  recommend,  and  the  people  should 
adopt,  the  methods  proposed  by  these  resolutions,  or  any  of 
them,  that  the  sessions  of  our  legislature  would  be  taken  up 
largely  with  attempts  to  change  the  Constitution  in  various 
respects,  and  I  further  believe  that  in  the  stress  and  storm  of 
political  excitement  the  representatives  of  the  people  might 
come  here  and  make  radical  and  dangerous  changes  in  the  Con- 
stitution, merely  for  partisan  advantage,  and  send  them  to  the 
people,  and  the  people  might  adopt  them  and  they  might  be- 
come part  of  our  Constitution,  and  thus  bring  ^about  great 
evils. 

"You  all  knovv  that  there  are  many  men  in  this  state  who 
believe  that  the  Constitution  ought  to  be  changed,  and  they 
would  be  constantly  coming  into  the  legislature  and  asking  to 
have  it  amended.  Almost  every  man  that  comes  here  to  this 
Convention  has  one  or  more  propositions  for  changes  which  he 
believes  would  improve  the  Constitution;  and  the  same  thing 
would  take  place  in  the  legislature.  Nearly  every  representa- 
tive would  have  a  proposition  to  present,  and  the  time  of  the 
legislature  would  be  absorbed  in  discussing  propositions  which 
the  good  sense  of  the  people,  in  most  instances,  would  reject. 
I  believe  that  our  Constitution  shbuld  be  firm,  that  it  should 
not  be  assailable  by  every  wind  that  blows;  but  if  we  give  this 
power  of  amendment  to  the  legislature,  it  will  not  be  as  firm 
as  it  is  today.  Respect  for  the  Constitution  would,  I  fear,  grow 
smaller  if  these  proposed  amendments  should  pass. 

"Our  legislature  today  has  'all  the  power  that  any  legislature 
should  have  to  pass  laws,  and  the  final  article  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights  reads  as  follows:  'A  frequent  recurrence  to  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  Constitution  and  a  constant  adherence 
to  justice,  moderation,  temperance,  industry,  frugality,  and  all 
the  social  virtues,  are  indispensably  necessary  to  preserve  th»? 
blessings  of  liberty  and  good  government.  The  people  ought, 
therefore,  to  have  a  particular  regard  to  all  those  principles  in 
the  choice  of  their  officers  and  representatives;  and  they  har^; 
a  right  to  require  of  their  lawgivers  and  magistrates  an  exact 
and  constant  observance  of  them  in  the  formation  and  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  necessary  for  the  good  administration  of  gov- 
ernment.* 

"There  is  your  Constitution  today.  The  principles  of  'justice, 
moderation,  temperance,  industry,  frugality,  and  all  the  social 
virtues'  are  now  the  constitutional  bases  of  legislative  action. 


602     JocriiNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

Outside  of  those  principles,  what  is  there  that  calls  for  this 
change?  And  what  is  there  in  them  that  calls  for  legislation 
which  the  legislature  has  not  now  the  power  to  enact? 

"I  trust,  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  that  you  will  not  vote 
to  make  this  change." 

Those  were  the  remarks  made  in  1902  by  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester,  Mr.  Jones.  I  simply  want  to  repeat  to  you  the 
s-ame  argument  which  I  made  to  that  Convention  ten  years  ago. 
Let  the  Constitution  remain  as  firm  and  as  unassailable  as  pos- 
sible. Do  not  give  over  the  time  of  the  legislature  to  the  con- 
sideration of  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  ana 
then  go  to  the  expense  of  printing  them  and  bringing  them 
up  again  in  another  legislature,  'and  then  voting  upon  them. 

The  only  argument  that  has  been  made  here  against  our 
present  system  is,  it  costs  money  to  have  a  Convention,  but. 
Gentlemen,  we  do  not  have  Conventions  very  often.  There 
was  none  from  1789  to  1850,  and  there  have  only  ^been  four 
since,  and,  when  you  take  the  expense  of  twenty-five  or  thirty 
thousand  dollars  for  a  Convention,  and  spread  that  over  ten  to 
fifteen  years,  your  expense  will  be  a  good  deal  less  than  the 
expense  of  having  your  legislature  taking  up  amendments  in 
one  or  two  sessions,  and  paying  for  printing  them  for  three 
months  in  papers  in  all  the  counties  of  the  states.  In  the 
interests  of  the  Constitution,  in  the  interests  of  this  state,  T 
ask  you  to  cling  to  the  old  Constitution,  change  it  as  little  as 
possible,  and  then  we  shall  go  home  satisfied  with  what  we 
have  done. 

Mr.  Updyke  of  Hanover. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  before  coming  to  this  Convention  I  spent  consid- 
erable time  and  thought  in  the  consideration  of  the  principal 
measures  that  were  likely  to  come  before  this  Convention;  bur, 
after  coming  here  and  observing  that  many,  or  most,  of  the 
questions  were  to  be  decided  upon  political  expe<diency  merely, 
as  I  have  no  political  aspirations,  and  no  political  experience 
such  as  is  deemed  essential  for  a  m^an  in  New  Hampshire, 
namely,  service  in  the  General  Court,  I  thought  it  proper  for 
me  to  listen  to  others  whose  political  experience  gave  them 
special  qualification  to  speak.  Therefore,  with  reference  to  the 
previous  questions  under  discussion,  I  have  taken  no  part  in  the 
debates. 

I  have  listened  to  the  same  arguments  given  on  the  floor  of 
this  Convention  tbat  were  made  in  the  Convention  ten  years 
ago,  and,  except  for  the  tax  question,  I  should  have  been  quite 
as  well  informed  upon  the  merits  of  the  questions  under  dis- 
cussion had  I  remained  at  Hanover  and  read  the  Journal   of 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  503 

ten  years  ago.  I  will  admit  that  on  the  tax  question  we  hav.i 
had  illuminating"  and  valuable  debates,  but  the  other  discus- 
sions have  failed  to  get  at  the  merits  of  the  questions.  With 
reference  to  the  question  now  under  discussion,  it  has  seemed 
to  me  that  it  could  not  be  a  question  of  party  politics,  and 
that  it  was  inconceivable  that  it  was  one  with  regard  to  which 
the  word  had  been  passed  along  in  advance  of  the  Convention 
that  it  should  be  killed.  This  question  ought  to  be  considered 
fairly,  and  the  fact  that  it  was  considered  ten  years  ago,  or 
twenty  years  ago,  is  no  argument  why  it  should  not  receive  fuil 
consideration   at   this  time. 

I  have  the  honor  of  representing  a  constituency  which  ha>> 
stood  for  and  has  contributed  much  to  the  traditions  and  in- 
stitutions of  this  state,  a  constituency  which  includes  men  whom 
you  all  honor.  This  constituency  is  practically  a  unit  upon  the 
question  of  the  desirability^  of  an  easier  mode  of  amendment, 
and  entertains  the  belief  that  it  is  the  most  pressing  question 
before  this  Convention.  I  believe  it  is  the  sentiment  of  think- 
ing men  in  the  state  today,  that,  if  this  body  of  men  rejects 
this  question,  which  is  particularly  pertinent  to  a  Constitutional 
Convention,  and  fails  to  consider  carefully  and  weigh  the  evi- 
dence with  respect  to  the  change  in  the  mode  of  amendment, 
we  shall  receive  greater  criticism  for  that  omission  than  any- 
thing else  we  shall  do  or  shall  have  failed  to  do.  This  question 
has  been  raised  not  only  by  the  constituency  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  represent,  but  it  has  received  attention  by  men  of 
experience  outside  of  the  state.  I  know  that  it  has  little 
weight,  in  the  present  state  of  mind  of  the  leaders  of  this  Con- 
vention, what  others  may  think,  but  it  may  be  of  interest  to 
know  that  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Political  Science 
Association,  held  at  Buffalo  last  winter,  when  the  subject  of 
state  Constitutions  was  discussed,  the  method  of  amendment 
of  the  Constitution  of  Xew  Hampshire  was  strongly  criticized. 
It  has  been  pointed  out  to  you  that  this  is  not  a  radical  meas- 
ure, but  that  forty-seven  states,  that  is,  all  the  states  except 
New  Hampshire,  provide  for  a  more  elastic  and  easier  mode 
than  the  single  method  of  a  Constitutional  Convention. 

I  would  also  point  out  the  fact  that  in  Massachusetts  the 
legislative  mode  of  amendment  was  adopted  in  1821,  and  no 
very  radical  changes  in  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  have 
resulted  in  consequence.  The  measures  adopted  have  been  few. 
There  have  been  periods  of  ten  or  fifteen  years  when  no  change 
has  been  made,  and,  usually,  not  more  than  one  or  two  have 
been  adopted  in  a  single  year.  The  number  of  measures  sub- 
mitted  to  the   people  for  their  consideration  have  been  fewer 


501     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

than  those  ordinarily  submitted  by  a  Constitutional  Convention. 
Upon  that  point,  it  seems  to  me,  the  method  proposed  is  much 
more  conservative  than  the  present  mo'de,  for,  while  this  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  being  very  conservative,  will  refer  a 
few  questions  to  the  people.  New  Hampshire  may  have  a  Con- 
vention such  as  the  one  recently  in  session  in  Ohio,  which  may 
submit  forty  or  fifty  questions  at  one  time.  Therefore,  I  taK« 
issue  with  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  with  regard  to  his 
statement,  that  there  will  be  more  questions  submitted  to  tho 
people  through  legislative  enactment  than  through  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention.  The  experience  of  other  states  has 
proved  the  reverse;  but,  rather,  fewer  questions  have  been 
placed  before  the  people  at  one  time  under  the  legislative  mode 
than  under  the  method  of  a  Constitutional  Convention. 

This  bill  is  extremely  conservative,  and  is  substantially  in 
line  with  the  other  New  England  states.  As  I  have  stated, 
forty-seven  states  provide  for  amendment  other  than  by  a  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  Thirt3'-three  states  provide  for  a  dual 
mode.  This  proposal  is  for  the  dual  mode,  viz.:  The  Consti- 
tutional Convention  when  needed  for  a  general  revision  of  the 
Constitution,  and  the  legislative  method  when  a  single  amend- 
ment is  required.  I  should  like  to  have  you  notice  how  con- 
servative this  method  is;  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  radical 
or  extreme  measure  to  be  presented  and  passed  by  the  people. 
In  the  first  place,  any  amendment  must  pass  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  400  members  by  majoritj^  vote,  an  absolute  ma- 
jority vote.  It  then  must  go  to  the  Senate  and  pass  by  an 
absolute  majority  of  that  House.  After  that  it  goes  before  the 
people,  when  electing  members  of  the  House  two  years  later. 
Then  it  must  pass  again  by  a  majority  vote  of  each  of  the  two 
houses.  And  finally,  it  must  be  submitted  to  the  people  and 
be  passed  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  This  procedure  is  in  one  par- 
ticular more  difficult  than  that  of  anj^  of  the  other  states. 
Twelve  or  thirteen  states  provide  for  initiation  by  two  succes- 
sive legislatures,  but  adoption  by  a  majority  instead  of  a  two- 
thirds  vote.  More  than  two  thirds  of  the  states  require  but 
one  legislature  to  initiate  an  amendment. 

The  question  has  been  raised  whether  or  not  the  present  sys- 
tem is  not  equally  and  more  quickly  operative  than  this  would 
be.  The  time  required  is  the  same  in  either  case.  It  takes 
three  and  one  half  years  to  call  a  Convention  and  submit  tho 
results  to  the  people.  In  March,  1909,  the  legislature  passed 
an  act  to  submit  the  question  of  calling  the  present  Conven- 
tion; in  1910  the  people  voted  upon  the  question;  in  1911  the 
legislature  again  passed  an  act,  the  people  having  voted  affirma- 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  506 

tively,  providing  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention  in  June,  1912.  The  results  of  this  Convention 
will  be  submitted  to  the  people  in  November,  1912,  thus  making 
three  and  one  half  years  from  the  initiation  of  the  call  of  the 
Convention  to  the  time  of  the  final  submission  of  the  results^ 
of  such  Convention.  The  same  length  of  time  vv^ould  be  re- 
quired for  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  by  means  of  tho 
legislative  mode.  Wherein  the  proposed  method  is  more  con- 
servative than  the  Constitutional  Convention  mode  lies  in  the 
fact  that  when  the  people  grant  permission  for  calling  a  Con- 
stitutional Convention  they  do  not  know  what  measures  will 
be  brought  before  such  Convention,  and  the  measures  which  are 
proposed  and  passed  may  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people 
within  six  months  thereafter,  as  will  be  the  case  this  year; 
while  with  the  legislative  method  the  people  know  definitely 
in  advance  the  character  of  the  changes,  and  they  have  three 
or  three  and  one  half  years  of  discussion  before  the  question* 
are  finally  voted  upon. 

Therefore,  it  is,  actually,  more  possible  through  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention  for  a  radical  measure  to  be  brought  before 
the  people  and  passed  in  a  party  spirit.  Mr.  Jones  said  in  his 
speech:  "I  believe  that,  in  the  stress  and  storm  of  political 
excitement,  the  representatives  of  the  people  may  come  here 
and  make  radical  and  dangerous  changes."  There  is  much  less 
likelihood  of  this  happening,  under  the  proposed  method,  than 
there  is  with  a  Constitutional  Convention. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  measure  is  in  the  interest  of  con- 
servatism. I  yield  to  no  one  in  my  respect  for,  and  loyalty  to, 
the  Constitution  and  constitutional  provisions,  and  it  is  for  thl?i 
reason  that  I  am  interested  in  the  proposed  measure,  for  I 
believe  that,  if  no  more  elastic  method  than  we  have  at  pres- 
ent is  adopted,  there  is  great  danger  of  an  assault  upon  our 
•Constitution  through  a  Constitutional  Convention  in  coming 
years.  We  are  much  more  likely  to  conserve  the  Constitution 
and  institutions  provided  for  in  our  Constitution  through  thJs 
method  than  if  we  attempt  to  retain  the  present  Convention 
method  alone. 

Mr.  Young  of  Laconia.— Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  I  have  been  told,  although  I  don't  know  how  true 
it  is,  that  for  more  than  a  year  before  Moxie  was  put  upon 
the  market  it  was  continuously  and  persistently  advertised 
regardless  of  expense.  My  experience  in  the  last  few  years  has 
taught  me  that  there  are  Moxie  vendors  in  politics.  You  can- 
not take  up  a  newspaper  today  unless  you  find  there  advertise- 
ments of  medicines  which  Avill  cure  all  kinds  of  illness  which 


506    Journal  of  OoNsriTunoNAL  Conv^ention. 

you  didn't  know  you  had  until  30U  read  the  symptoms.  They 
are  also  appearing  in  the  magazines,  advertising  inventions  in 
order  to  create  a  demand  for  them,  and  I  submit.  Gentlemen, 
the  experience  we  have  gone  through  in  the  last  few  years,  here 
and  elsewhere,  shows  that  there  are  people  w'ho  are  evidently 
anxious  to  create  a  demand  for  something  which  they  have  to 
vend.  There  is  one  word  in  the  English  language  which  I  be- 
lieve to  be  very  useful,  and  that  is  the  little  word,  "why";  and 
I  believe  we  can  employ  it  in  no  place  to  a  better  advantage 
than  we  can  employ  it  here,  and  ask  ourselves  why  we  need 
this,  what  I  call,  radical  change?  It  has  been  suggested  by 
someone  here,  while  this  matter  has  been  under  consideration, 
that  a  former  Attorney-General  of  Massachusetts  thought  we 
ought  to  have  it.  If  there  is  any  one  thing  that  would  make 
me  prejudiced  against  it,  it  is  the  fact  that  they  think  down 
in  Massachusetts  that  we  ought  to  have  it.  I  would  like  to 
know  what  particular  thing  Massachusetts  ever  did  for  us,  un- 
less it  was  when  she  erected  a  monument  over  the  battleground 
where  the  men  of  New  Hampshire  won  a  victor}'.  She  is  one 
of  the  group  of  four  states,  and  only  four,  which  dignify  their 
organization  by  the  name,  "commonwealth."  It  is  the  only 
state  in  the  Union,  so  far  as  I  know,  which  places  its  own  flag 
higher  than  the  flag  of  the  United  States,  and,  if  it  wasn't  for 
the  brains  that  have  been  sent  into  Massachusets  from  Maine, 
New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  and  Ireland,  they  couldn't  run  it  a 
minute. 

Now,  my  serious  objection  to  this  measure  is  that  it  is  pon- 
derous. First,  you  have  to  submit  the  amendment  to  one  legis- 
lature. It  goes  over  two  years,  and  you  have  to  submit  it  to 
another  legislature,  and  if  you  can  get  two  legislatures  in  suc- 
cession which  will  agree  to  any  one  thing,  it  will  be  a  marvel 
and  next  to  a  miracle.  Then,  assuming  they  do  agree,  you  sub- 
mit it  to  the  people,  just  as  you  do  now,  after  you  pay  the" 
newspapers  up  and  down  the  state  for  printing  it  for  three 
months.  In  addition,  you  may  have  to  call  a  Convention,  just 
as  we  do  now.    Hence  it  eliminates  nothing. 

Why,  it  reminds  me  of  a  typewriter  which  came  around  in 
the  early  days  of  those  machines,  where  you  almost  had  to  go 
but  into  the  other  room  and  put  in  a  pin  every  time  you  got 
to  the  end  of  a  line,  and  I  hope  this  measure  wull  not  prevail, 
and  that  the  report  will  go  back  to  the  Convention  that  this 
measure  be  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  th«? 
gentleman  from  Manchester  asks  why,  and  I  think  there  are 
good  and   suflicient   reasons   why.     I   yield   to   no   man  in   this 


Friday,  June*  21,  1912.  607 

Convention  in  reverence  for  the  Constitution  and  for  funda- 
mental law.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  should  be  hastily  changed, 
and  one  reason,  and  the  chief  reason,  that  I  favor  this  amend- 
ment is  the  difficulty  of  changing-  the  fundamental  law  under 
the  plan  proposed.  There  are  difficulties  in  the  way  now.  We 
meet  here,  we  send  six,  eight  or  ten  amendments  to  the  people, 
with  the  knowledge,  or  with  the  feeling,  beforehand,  tacked 
as  they  will  be,  bunched  as  they  will  be  on  the  end  of  a  ballot, 
with  little  attention  paid  to  them,  that  they  will  be  defeated, 
or  that  they  will  be  adopted  almost  without  consideration.  The 
Amendment  proposed  simply  provides  due  and  thorough  con- 
sideration of  any  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

First,  it  has  to  come  before  a  legislature,  and  the  legis- 
lature may  as  well  spend  some  time  in  considering  fundamental 
law  as  waste  a  lot  of  time  in  considering  unconsequential  fish 
and  game  laws.  I  do  not  think  it  would  harm  the  members  of 
the  legislature  to  spend  some  time  in  consideration  of  the  fun- 
damental law  of  our  state.  According  to  this  plan,  a  proposed 
amendment  must  pass  both  Houses  of  the  legislature.  It  then 
goes  to  the  people  for  their  consideration  for  two  years.  It 
is  printed  in  the  newspapers  for  three  months.  There  is  plenty 
of  opportunity  for  discussion  during  those  two  years,  on  the 
part  of  the  people.  If  it  is  an  amendment  of  great  importance, 
the  next  legislature  is  likely  to  be  chosen  somewhat  with  ref- 
erence to  the  amendment.  It  has  to  be  passed  by  both  houses 
of  that  next  legislature.  It  then  goes  back  to  the  people  and 
must  be  ratified,  as  now,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  people. 
I  believe  we  can  secure  no  more  difficult  way  of  amending  our 
fundamental  law.  and  amending  it  carefully,  than  in  this  way. 

I  am  not  a  radical.  Sir.  I  am  conservative,  and,  because  I  am 
conservative,  I  favor  this  change.  I  do  not  care  what  the  state 
of  Massachusetts  thinks  about  us.  I  agree  with  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester,  we  are  capable  of  standing  on  our  own  feet, 
but  I  do  know  this,  from  a  residence  in  that  state  of  some 
twenty-five  years,  a  state  that  has  held  no  Constitutional  Con- 
ventions since  1850,  a  state  in  which  I  do  not  think  more  than 
one  amendment  at  a  time  has  ever  been  submitted  to  the  people, 
I  do  know  that  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts  the  system  pro- 
posed by  this  amendment  works  well.  It  would  work  better 
in  this  state,  for  the  people  would  have  a  longer  time  to  con- 
sider it  than  they  do  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts.  They  are 
unfortunately  afflicted  there  with  annual  sessions  of  the  legis- 
lature. We  have  biennial  sessions.  You  get  an  amendment  to 
our  Constitution  through  after  four  years'  consideration,  and 
I  believe  there  would  be  almost  no  possibilty,  certainly  no  prob- 


508    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

ability,  of  ever  submitting  more  than  one  amendment  at  a  time. 
There  would  be  full,  free,  fair  discussion  of  it,  and  we  should 
find  ourselves  not  amending  the  Constitution  on  trivial  mai- 
ters,  or  any  matters  except  those  that  had  the  fullest  and  freest 
and  fairest  consideration,  not  only  by  two  legislatures,  but  o^ 
the  part  of  the  people  of  the  state  for  two  years. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Just  a  single  word:  The  gentleman 
from  Haverhill  has  not  answered  the  question  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Manchester,  "Why?".  We  have  lived  under  this 
method  of  changing  the  Constitution  since  it  has  existed,  and 
has  there  been  any  complaint,  when  you  come  right  down  to 
it,  that  we  have  not  had  Conventions  enough  and  opportunity 
enough  to  amend  the  Constitution?  The  gentleman  speaks  of 
the  opportunity,  of  the  greater  opportunity  that  there  would  be 
before  a  legislative  body.  The  gentleman  should  know,  from 
his  own  experience,  that  in  most  all  legislation  in  a  legisla- 
tive body  the  Committees  take  care  of  the  whole  subject.  In 
our  Constitutional  Convention,  you  all  know  from  experience, 
we  have  acted  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  where  everybody  has 
had  an  opportunity  to  know  all  of  the  arguments  before  the 
entire  assembly,  and  we  have  only  one  subject  before  us,  and 
that  is  the  amending  of  the  state  Constitution.  Now,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Haverhill,  and  others  who  have  had  legislative 
experience  as  long  as  his,  and  as  long  as  some  of  the  rest  of 
us,  know  that  the  consideration  which  such  a  body  as  this, 
picked  from  the  people,  picked  representatives,  gives  to  quev 
tions  of  a  fundamental  character  would  not  be  given  by  th'» 
legislature,  and  that  the  time  of  the  latter  body  would  be  taken 
up  by  the  consideration  of  everybody's  ideas  who  wanted  ta 
amend  the  Constitution. 

I  do  not  know  that  I  could  state,  if  I  took  more  time,  the 
position  better  than  it  was  stated  ten  years  ago  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Manchester,  Mr.  Jones,  and  re-stated   by  him  here. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford. — Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  getting  to  be 
very  near  dinner-time,  and  I  wish  we  might  have  a  vote  now. 
I  suppose  others  would  like  to  discuss  the  question,  but  I  want 
to  make  a  request,  that  we  take  a  vote  now,  because  I  think  the 
discussion  would  not  change  the  vote. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  of  Mr.  AYadleigh  appeared 
not  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Wadleigh  of  Milford  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  65  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 


FfiiDAY,  June  21,  1912.  509 

and  189  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion 
that  the  resohition  be  reported  with  the  recommendation 
that  it  be  agreed  to  did  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  Committee  do 
now  rise  and  report  the  resolution,  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  it  is  inexpedient  to  agree  to  the  amendment  pro- 
posed in  the  three  resolutions  before  the  Committee. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

In  CONYENTrON. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  to  whom  were  referred  Eesolution  Xo.  3,  Eelating 
to  Future  Mode  of  x\mending  the  Constitution,  Eesolution 
No.  11,  Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  Eesolution  No.  16,  Eelating  to  Future  Mode  of 
Amending  the  Constitution,  having  considered  the  same,  re- 
port the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed  in  the  resolutions.. 

'The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Eesolution  No. 
27,  Eelating  to  House  of  Eepresentatives  and  Senate  and 
the  Compensation  of  the  Officers  and  Members  Thereof,  hav- 
ing considered  the  same,  report  the  same,  with  the  follow- 
ing recommendation: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed,  the  subject-matter  of  said  resolution  having 
heen  favorably  reported  in  other  resolutions. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 
Mr.  George  W.  Fowler  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on 


510     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Resolution  No. 
5,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest  Lands  and  Money 
at  Interest,  'having  considered  the  same,  report  the  same,  with 
the  following  recommendation: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed,  the  subject-matter  of  said  resolution  having 
been  reported  and  acted  upon  in  a  new  draft. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 
Report  of  Committee  on  Finance. 

Mr.  McLane  of  Milford,  for  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
present  the  following  report  and  recommend  its  adoption: 

We  recommend  that  the  Secretary  be  authorized  to  make 
up  the  pay-roll  of  the  members  of  this  Convention  as  fol- 
lows: 

Eighteen  days'  service  @  $3.00  per  day  for  413 

members    $22,302.00 

That  the  officers  and  employees  be  allowed  the  respective 
sums  placed  opposite  their  names: 

Harrie  M.  Young,  Temporary  Secretary $10.00 

Allan  Chester  Clark,  Secretary 154.00 

Bernard  W.  Carey,  Assistant  Secretary 154.00 

Albert  P.  Davis,  Sergeant-at-Arms 72.00 

Charles  C.  Garland,  Chaplain 25.00 

John  F.  Bartlett,  Doorkeeper 63.00 

Oscar  D.  Beverstock,  Doorkeeper 63.00 

Charles  A.  Holden,  Doorkeeper 63.00 

George  Goodhue,  Doorkeeper 63.00 

Eugene  D.  Sanborn,  Warden  of  Coat  Room ....  63.00 
Augustus  P.  Home,  Assistant  Warden  of  Coat 

Room    63.00 

Lizzie  H.  Sanborn,  Official  Stenographer 72.00 

Ray  E.  Burkett,  Assistant  Stenographer 72.00 

Maurice  H.  Smith,  Page 36.00 

Fred  A.  Rushlow,  Page 36.00 


FiiiDAY,  June  21,  1912.  511 

John  M.  Shirley,  Page 36.00 

That  the  following  bills  for  incidental  expenses  be  allowed: 

Edson  C.  Eastman,  stationery  and  supplies....  $23.58 

Win.  M.  Haggett,  supplies 15.00 

Phaneuf  &  Son,  supplies 2.6o 

E.  L.  Glick,  engrossing 20.00 

W.  P.  Goodman,  supplies 11.55 

Ray  E.  Burkett,  rent  of  typewriter 4.0U 

The  Xovelty  Co.,  supplies 5.00 

Underwood  Typewriter  Co.,  rent  of  typewriter  4.00 

The  Harding  Uniform  &  Regalia  Co.,  supplies  10.00 
D.  W.  Connor,  expenses  incurred  in  maintaining 

contested   seat    15.00 

And  the  total  amount  of  all  the  above  bills, 

as  approved  by  the  Finance  Committee,  is..     $23,457.78 
That  all  other  bills  in  connection  with  the  session  of  this 

Convention  be  approved  by  the  Governor  and  Council,  who 

shall  draw  his  warrant  for  the  same. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  that  w^hen  the  Convention 
adjourn  this  morning  it  be  to  meet  at  3  o'clock  this  after- 
noon. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Saltmarsh  of  Laconia,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  12.55  o'clock. 

AFTERN-OON  SESSION". 

The  Convention  met  at  3  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

RePOET    of   (COMMITTtEE    OX    J0URN"AL. 

Mr.  Young  of  Manchester,  for  the  Special  Committee  on 
Journal  of  Proceedings,  to  whom  was  referred  the  matter  of 


512     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

the  publication  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  hav- 
ing considered  the  matter,  report  the  following  resolutions 
and  recommend  their  adoption: — 

Resolved,  That  the  official  reporters  be  directed  to  make  a 
<3opy  of  the  debates  verbatim,  and  that  they  be  paid  in  full 
for  their  services  in  copying  said  debates  the  usual  compen- 
sation of  twenty  cents  for  each  hundred  words,  and  that 
their  account  be  audited  by  the  Grovernor,  who  shall  draw 
his  warrant  for  the  same. 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  be  in- 
structed to  supervise  the  printing  of  the  Journal  of  the  Con- 
vention, eliminating  such  extraneous  remarks  as  do  not  ap- 
ply directly  to  the  subject  under  discussion,  and  all  unneces- 
sary tabular  matter,  and  to  prepare  and  cause  to  be  printed 
therewith  a  proper  and  extended  index,  under  suitable  head- 
ings, for  ready  reference  to  names,  towns,  and  subjects;  and 
that  his  bill  for  compensation  therefor,  when  audited  and 
approved  by  the  Governor  and  Council,  be  allowed  and  paid. 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  instructed  to  procure  as 
soon  as  possible  after  the  close  of  the  Convention,  2,200 
printed  copies,  in  pamphlet  form,  of  said  journal,  to  be  dis- 
tributed as  follows,  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of 
State:  One  copy  to  each  member  and  officer  of  the  Conven- 
tion, one  copy  to  each  town,  to  be  kept  in  the  office  of  the 
town  clerk;  one  copy  to  each  Secretary  of  other  states  and 
territories,  to  be  placed  in  their  respective  state  or  territorial 
libraries;  one  copy  to  each  public  institution  of  learning  in 
our  state;  one  copy  to  each  public  or  circulating  library  in 
our  state;  five  copies  to  Dartmouth  College;  five  copies  to 
the  New  Hampshire  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic 
Arts;  five  copies  to  the  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society; 
ten  copies  to  the  New  Hampshire  state  library;  500  copies 
to  be  reserved  for  the  use  of  members  of  future  Conventions; 
and  the  remainder  to  be  disposed  of  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Secretary  of  State. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  event  of  the  appropriatic::  made  for 
this  Convention  being  exhausted  before  the  publication  of 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  513 

the  Journal,  as  above  provided,  that  the  incoming  legislature 
be  requested  to  make  such  further  appropriation  as  may  be 
necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  object  of  these  resolutions, 
and  that  the  President  of  this  Convention  be  instructed  to 
see  that  this  matter  is  presented  to  said  legislature. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendations  adopted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  was  referred  Eesolution  No.  58,  Eelat- 
ing  to  Taxation,  having  considered  the  same,  report  the  same, 
with  the  recommendation  that  the  resolution  be  amended  as 
follows,  and  that  the  resolution  as  amended  be  agreed  to 
by  the  Convention: 

Insert  after  the  words,  "from  stock  of  foreign  corpora- 
tions,^^ in  lines  9  and  47  of  the  resolution  as  printed  the 
words,  "and  foreign  voluntary  associations,"  so  that  said  reso- 
lution will  read  as  follows: — 

EEaoLUTiON"  No.  58. 

Eela'ting  to  Taxation 
(As  amended.) 
Resolved,  That  Article  5,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  inserting  in  the  twenty-second  line  of  said 
article  after  the  words  "and  upon  all  the  estates  within 
the  same^'  the  following,  "but  the  said  General  Court  shall 
have  full  power  and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax 
growing  wood  and  timber  and  money  at  interest,  including 
money  in  savings  banks,  and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on 
incomes  from  stock  of  foreign  corporations  and  foreign  vol- 
untary associations  and  money  at  interest  except  on  incomes 
from  money  deposited  in  savings  banks  in  this  state  received 
by  the  depositors  and  it  may  graduate  such  taxes  according 
to  the  amount  of  the  incomes  and  may  grant  reasonable  ex- 
emptions; provided  that  if  such  taxes  be  levied  on  incomes 
from  stock  and  money  at  interest  no  other  taxes  shall  be 
levied  thereon  against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof."  So 
that  the  article  as  amended  shall  read  as  follows: — 


514     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

"Art.    5.     And,    further,   full   power    and    authority    are 
hereby  given  and  granted  to  the  said  General  Court,  from 
time  to  time  to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of 
wholesome  and  reasonable  orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordinance.?, 
directions,  and  instructions,  either  with  penalties  or  with- 
out, so  as  the  same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Con- 
stitution, as  they  may  judge  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of 
this  state  and  for  the  governing  and  ordering  thereof  and 
of  the  subjects  of  the  same,  for  the  necessary  support  and  de- 
fense of  the  government  thereof;  and  to  name  and  settle  bi- 
ennially, or  provide  by  fixed  laws  for  the  naming  and  settling 
all  civil  officers  within  this  state,  such  officers  excepted  the 
election  and  appointment  of  whom  are  hereafter  in  this  form 
of  government  otherwise  provided  for;  and  to  set  forth  the 
several  duties,  powers,  and  limits  of  the  several  civil  and 
military  officers  of  this  state,  and  the  forms  of  such  oaths  or 
affirmations  as  shall  be  respectively  administered  unto  them 
for  the  execution  of  their  several  offices  and  places,  so  as  the 
same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitution ;  and, 
also,  to  impose  fines,  mulcts,  imprisonments,  and  other  pun- 
ishments; and  to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and  reason- 
able assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants 
of,  and  residents  within,  the  said  state,  and  upon  all  estates 
within  the  same,  but  the  said  General  Court  shall  have  full 
power  and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax  grow- 
ing wood  and  timber  and  money  at  interest  including  money 
in  savings  banks,  and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on  incomes 
from   stock   of   foreign   corporations   and   foreign   valuntary 
associations  and  money  at  interest  except  on  incomes  from 
money  deposited  in  savings  banks  in  this  state  received  by 
the  depositors  and  it  may  graduate  such  taxes  according  to 
the  amount  of  the  incomes  and  may  grant  reasonable  ex- 
emptions; provided,  that  if  such  taxes  be  levied  on  incomes 
from  fitock  and  money  at  interest  no  other  taxes  shall  be  lev- 
ied thereon  against  the  owner  or  holder  thereof,  to  be  issued 
and  disposed  of  by  warrants,  under  the  hand  of  the  Gov- 
ernor of  this  state  for  the  time  being,  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Council,  for  the  public  service,  in  the  neces- 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  515 

sary  defense  and  support  of  the  government  of  this  state  and 
the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  subjects  thereof,  ac- 
cording to  such  acts  as  are  or  shall  be  in  force  within  the 
same.  Provided,  that  the  General  Court  shall  not  authorize 
any  town  to  loan  or  give  its  money  or  credit,  directly  or  in- 
directly, for  the  benefit  of  any  corporation  having  for  its 
object  a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in  any  way  aid  the  same  by 
taking  its  stock  or  bonds." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  of  the 
resolution  recommended  by  the  Committee, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  President,  just  a  single  word  in 
explanation:  The  Legislative  Committee  supposed  they  had 
covered  this  point  in  the  original  draft,  and  we  are  under  ob- 
ligations to  the  Committee  that  took  this  thing  in  charge  for 
calling  attention  to  this  matter.  We  desired  to  make  the  thing 
doubly  sure. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
that  the  resolution  as  amended  be  agreed  to  by  the  Conven- 
tion,— 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed  and  the  reso- 
lution was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of 
Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  were  referred  various  proposed  amend- 
ments in  relation  to  the  size  of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
with  instructions  to  report  an  amendment  that  should  pro- 
vide for  a  House  of  Representatives  not  exceeding  350  mem- 
bers, based  upon  the  town  system  of  representation,  having 
considered  the  same,  submit  the  following  substitutes  for 
Articles  9  and  10  of  the  Constitution: 


516    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolution  No.  60. 

Relaticg  to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  9  and  10  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution  be  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state 
a  representation  of  the  people  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town  OT  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having ^600  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census  of  the  state, 
taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state,  may 
€lect  one  representative;  if  2,40^0  such_inhabitants,  may  elect 
two  representatives,  and  so  proceeding  in  that  proportion, 
making  IjOQ  such  inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number 
for  any  additional  representative;  provided,  that  no  town  shall 
be  divided  or  the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  cities  so 
altered  as  to  increase  the  number  of  representatives  to  which 
said  town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding 
•census. 

Art.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place  or  city  ward  shall, 
have  less  than  six  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  General 
Court  shall  authorize  such  town,  place  or  wa.rd  to  elect  and 
send  to  the  General  Court  a  representative  such  proportionate 
part  of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear 
to  six  hundred,  but  the  General  Court  shall  not  authorize 
any  such  town,  place  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such  repre- 
sentative except  as  herein  provided;  and,  provided  further, 
that  the  legislature  may  authorize  contiguous  towns  or  con- 
tiguous towns  and  wards  having  respectively  less  than  six 
hundred  inhabitants,  but  whose  inhabitants  in  the  aggregate 
equal  or  exceed  six  hundred,  to  unite  for  the  purpose  of  elect- 
ing a  representative,  if  each  town  so  decides  by  major  vote 
at  a  meeting  called  for  the  purpose,  and  the  votes  of  towns 
thus  united  shall  be  cast,  counted,  returned,  and  declared  as 
the  votes  for  senators  are  cast,  counted,  returned,  and  de- 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  617 

clared,  and  the  Governor  shall,  fourteen  days  before  the 
first  Wednesday  of  each  biennial  session  of  the  legislature, 
issue  his  summons  to  such  persons  as  appear  to  be  chosen  rep- 
resentatives by  a  plurality  of  votes  to  attend  and  take  their 
seats  on  that  day. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Mln-ority  Report. 

We,  the  undersigned,  members  of  the  Committee  on  Legis- 
lative Department,  to  whom  were  referred  all  proposed  amend- 
ments relating  to  decreasing  the  size  of  the  House  of  Eep- 
resentatives  and  increasing  the  size  of  the  Senate,  not  being 
able  to  agree  with  the  majority  report  of  said  Committee, 
beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  as  the  report  of  said  minor- 
ity: 

Besolved,  That  Articles  9  and  10  of  the  Constitution  ^f 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  be  so  amended  that  the  samr 
will  read  as  follows: 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state, 
a  representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census  of 
the  state,  ta¥en  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this 
state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  three  thousand  such 
inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives  ;~an3^  so  proceecC 
ing  in  that  proportion,  making  twenty-four  hundred  such 
inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  of  any  additional 
representative;  provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or 
the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or 
city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census. 

Art.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  plaee,  or  city  ward  shall 
have  less  than  six  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  General 
Court  shall  authorize  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and 
send  to  the  General  Court  a  representative  such  proportionate 


518    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

part  of  the  time  in  each  period  of  ten  years  as  the  number 
of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six  hundred;  but  the  General 
Court  shall  not  auithorize  any  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to 
elect  and  send  such  representative  except  as  herein  pro- 
vided; provided,  that  the  legislature  may  authorize  contigu- 
ous towns,  or  contiguous  towns  and  wards,  having,  respect- 
ively, less  than  six  hundred  inhabitants,  but  whose  inhab- 
itants in  the  aggregate  equal  or  exceed  six  hunflred,  to  unito 
for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  representative,  if  each  town 
so  decides  by  major  vote  at  a  meeting  called  for  the  purpose; 
and  the  votes  of  towns  thus  united  ^hall  be  cast,  counted, 
returned,  and  declared  as  the  votes  for  senators  are  cast, 
counted,  returned  and  declared;  and  the  Governor  shall, 
fourteen  days  before  the  first  Wednesday  of  each  biennial 
session  of  the  legislature,  issue  bis  summons  to  such  persons 
as  appear  to  be  chosen  representatives  by  a  plurality  of  votes, 
to  attend  and  take  their  seats  on  that  day. 

Also  amend  articles  24  and  25  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  so  that  the  same  as  amended  shall 
read: 

Art.  24.  The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-six  members, 
who  shall  hol^^lEefr  ofRce  for  two  years,  from  tlie  fir?t 
Wednesday  of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  Senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide 
the  state  into  thirty-six  districts  of  contiguous  territory,  as 
nearly  equal  as  may  be,  without  dividing  towns  and  unin- 
corporated places,  on  the  basis  of  population  according  to  the 
last  census  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state. 

JESSE  M.  BARTON, 
AETHUE  G.  WHITTEMOEE, 
OEVILLE  D.   FESSENDEN, 
EDWAED  H.  WASON. 

The  minority  report  was  accepted. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  the  minority  report 
be  substituted  for  the  report  of  the  majority. 


Fkiday,  June  21,  1912.  519 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport 
to  substitute, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  to  strike  out  all  of  that 
paj-t  of  the  minority  report  that  relates  to  representation  in 
the  Senate. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Con- 
cord,— 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord'. — I  make  this  motion  for  the  purpose 
of  having  a  separate  vote  upon  the  increase  of  the  Senate  and 
the  reduction  of  the  House.  The  position  of  all  members  of 
the  Committee  present,  except  four,  was  that  these  two  propo- 
sitions should  go  to  the  people  separately.  We  have  no  pride 
in  the  matter  at  all.  It  is  for  this  Convention  to  decide.  The 
judgment  of  a  majority  of  the  Committee  was  that  the  propo- 
sition to  reduce  the  House  might  fail,  and  yet  the  proposition  to 
increase  the  Senate  might  carry.  Now,  then,  if  the  Convention 
desires  to  increase  the  Senate,  without  running  the  risk  of  los- 
ing both,  they  will  vote  for  my  motion  to  strike  out,  so  we  can 
consider  each  body  separately. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Neiviwrt. — :Mr,  President,  Members  of  the  Con- 
vention, the  minority  who  signed  this  report,  felt  that  it  was  a 
good  thing  to  submit  these  two  measures  together;  that  pos- 
sibly carrying  either  one  of  them  depended -upon  what  action 
should  be  taken  on  the  other;  that  if  the  House  should  not  be 
cut  down,  the  Senate  ought  not  to  be  enlarged.  It  is  also  true 
that  the  merits  of  this  resolution,  which  is  very  largely  that 
proposed  by  Mr.  Pattee  from  Manchester,  may  be  affected  by 
what  shall  be  determined  to  be  the  size  of  the  Senate.  For  los- 
ing their  representatives,  it  has  been  thought  that  some  com-f 
pensation  should  be  made  to  the  larger  towns  and  cities  by  in- 
creasing the  number  of  senators,  and  placing  them  on  the  basis 
of  population.  Therefore  I  do  not  think  these  measures  should 
be  considered  separately,  either  here  or  when  they  are  put 
before  the  voters  for  ratification,  but  considered  together. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Just  a  single  word,  Mr.  President,  in 
reply.  The  increase  of  the  Senate  is  very  slight,  merely  twelve. 
If  there  is  a  sentiment  in  this  Convention  in  favor  of  increasing 
the  Senate,  why  I  believe  that  the  people  should  have  an  op- 
portunity of  voting  on  that  proposition  separately.  The  Com- 
mittee has  no  pride  at  all  about  the  question. 

Mr.  Pillshvry  of  Manchest€i\—I  do  not  think,  Mr.  President  and 


520    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Gentlemen,  that  this  thing  should  go  through  this  Convention 
without  some  representative  of  the  cities  speaking  on  it.  Now, 
I  want  to  speak  in  favor  of  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  The  facts  of  the  case,  I  think,  are  just 
these:  This  Convention  will  favor  reducing  the  size  of  the 
House  by  providing  for  one  member  for  each  600  population, 
according  to  both  majority  and  minority  reports,  and  will  also 
favor  the  minority  report,  which  makes  2,400  the  mean  increas- 
ing number  for  the  second  representative.  I  think  that  will  go 
through  this  Convention,  and  I  also  think  that  the  city  of  Man- 
chester, and  the  other  cities  and  large  towns,  will  vote  so  over- 
whelmingly against  it  at  the  election  that  it  will  be  defeated. 
I  do  not  think  there  is  much  doubt  about  that. 

But  this  other  proposition,  which  is  to  increase  the  Senate, 
I  think  is  very  favorably  considered  by  the  city  men.  I  believe 
when  this  comes  to  the  referendum  of  the  people,  they  will 
vote  in  favor  of  increasing  the  Senate.  Now,  I  can  see  no 
earthly  reason  for  uniting  the  two  propositions  on  the  ballot 
next  November.  If  you  do,  I  think  they  will  both  be  defeated, 
because  the  voters  in  the  cities  will  prefer  to  sacrifice  the  de- 
sired increase  in  the  Senate  in  order  to  maintain  what  they 
are  entitled  to  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Of  course, 
this  matter  of  representation  in  the  House  was  very  carefully 
gone  over  before,  and  it  was  agreed  by  a  very  large  majority 
that  we  should  keep  the  town  system,  and  that  this  reduction 
should  be  made  by  cutting  off  from  the  cities,  and  both  ma- 
jority and  minority  reports  provide  for  that  very  thing,  that  we 
shall  reduce  the  House  of  Representatives  by  cutting  down  the 
cities  and  leaving  the  towns  alone.  That  is  all  very  well.  That 
will  be  put  up  to  the  people,  and  I  think  on  election  day  the 
voters  in  the  cities  and  large  towns  will  take  care  of  that.  Buf 
we  city  men  are  in  favor  of  increasing  the  Senate.  Therefor«», 
I  hope  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford, 
will  prevail. 

Mr.  Wason  of  NasMa. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  the 
minority  of  the  Legislative  Committee  has  made  the  joint  re- 
port, as  you  see,  and  objects  to  the  division  of  the  subject  for 
reasons  that  hardly  need  discussion.  The  gentleman  from 
Manchester  who  has  just  spoken  has  frankly  indicated  to  you 
the  reasons  why  we  took  the  position  that  we  did.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, he  tells  you  that  he  believes  the  Pattee  bill,  so  called, 
will  be  adopted  by  this  Convention,  which  is  that  every  town 
with  a  population  of  600  inhabitants  can  have  one  representa- 
tive to  the  General  Court,  and  that  the  larger  towns  and  cities, 
with  a  larger  population  than  they,  have  to  have  3,000  of  every 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  621 

kind  for  additional  representatives.  He  says  that  he  wants 
the  situation  divided,  so  this  Convention  can  vote  upon  each 
proposition  separately,  and  so  that  the  people  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  will  vote  upon  it  separately,  and  why?  Be- 
cause he  favors  an  increase  of  the  Senate,  which  is  materia L 
Gentlemen,  we  now  have,  and  have  had  for  years,  a  Senate 
composed  of  twenty-four  members,  and  the  minority  and  ma- 
jority of  the  Legislative  Committee,  by  their  reports,  recom- 
mend an  increase  of  twelve,  which  is  fifty  percent,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord  well  knew\  The  minority  report  reduces- 
the  House  of  Representatives  substantially  one  hundred  mem- 
bers, which  is  a  reduction  of  twenty-five  percent.  Now,  then^ 
the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Pillsbury,  tells  us  that 
the  cities  favor  the  increase  of  the  Senate,  but  object  to  the 
decrease  of  the  House  as  proposed.  Why,  did  you  ever  see  the 
little  balances?  If  you  have,  put  the  proposition  for  the  Sen- 
ate on  one  side,  and  print  the  sign,  "fifty  percent  increase,'* 
which  benefits  the  cities;  on  the  other  balance  put  the  words^ 
"decrease  twenty-five  percent,"  which  represents  the  country 
towns.  I  am  not  surprised  that  we  members  from  the  city  favor 
an  increase  of  the  Senate,  and  I  say  to  you,  Mr.  President, 
that,  as  a  delegate  to  this  Convention,  I  favor  the  increase  of 
the  Senate.  I  also  favor  this  saving  to  the  members  of  the 
country  districts  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  as  many  of 
their  rights  that  they  now  enjoy  as  we  possibly  can. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  average  man  is  a  little  selfish.  It 
has  also  been  said  that  there  are  some  men  who  are  mag- 
nanimous. On  the  proposition  before  this  Convention  at  this 
moment,  on  this  division  here,  how  does  it  even  up?  The  coun- 
try districts,  the  country  towns,  are  magnanimous  to  the  cities 
in  the  Senate;  the  cities  ought  to  be  magnanimous  to  the  towns. 
It  is  decreasing  the  influence  in  parts  of  the  larger  towns  and 
wards  of  New^  Hampshire  in  the  lower  branch  of  the  legislature, 
but  it  is  increasing  the  influence  of  the  cities  in  the  upper 
branch.  I  believe  that,  inasmuch  as  the  joint  proposition  calls 
for  giving  and  taking  by  the  country  towns  and  the  cities, 
that  it  is  fair,  as  fair  perhaps  as  we  could  formulate,  if  we 
worked  for  weeks  upon  the  subject;  and,  if  it  is,  is  it  improper, 
Mr.  President,  for  this  Convention  to  ask  the  voters  of  rhe 
country  districts,  to  ask  the  voters  of  the  cities,  to  vote  upon 
the  one  proposition,  and  then,  if  it  is  defeated,  the  towns  do 
not  lose  and  the  cities  do  not  gain? 

Let  us  be  fair,  and  by  the  votes  of  next  November,  whether 
our  action  here  today  is  ratified  or  defeated,  let  us  not  give 
advantage  greater  to  one   section  than  we  give  to  another,     I 


522    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

hope,  Mr.  President,  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  will  be  defeated,  and  that  we  shall  meet 
this  issue,  with  the  two  together,  fairly  and  squarely,  and  sub- 
mit it  to  the  voters  of  the  good  old  Granite  state  next  No- 
vember. 

Mr.  WMtcher  of  HaverhilL — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  there  was  one  significant  remark  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Manchester  that  I  hope  did  not  escape  the 
attention  of  anj'  member  of  the  Convention,  especially  those 
from  the  country  towns.  He  was  in  favor  of  submitting  these 
propositions  separately,  because,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  he  said 
the  cities  would  take  care  of  the  first.  In  other  words,  the 
cities  would  defeat  the  first,  and  he  said  the  cities  were  in 
favor  of  the  second.  Now,  let's  see.  The  cities  would  defeat 
the  first  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Bar- 
ton, of  one  for  every  600  and  two  for  3,000,  with  2,400  as  the 
mean.  Mark  you,  he  said  the  cities  would  take  care  of  that! 
And  the  cities  Would  also  take  care  of  the  thirty-six  senators. 
Let  us  not  forget  that,  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  to   divide  this  proposition. 

I  want  to  say  just  a  word,  that  I  am  delighted  to  see  that 
this  Committee  is  edging  around  toward  the  onl}^  fair  and  just 
and  equal  proposition  of  district  representation,  by  providing 
that  the  towns  that  have  less  than  600  may  unite  and  form 
districts.  I  hope.  Sir,  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Concord  will  be  voted  down,  and  that  w^e  will  have  a 
vote,  if  we  are  going  to  increase  by  the  paltry  number  of  twelve 
the  much-maligned  Senate  of  New  Hampshire,  which  has  saved 
New  Hampshire  in  the  last  few  years  from  some  disreputable 
things;  if  we  are  going  to  increase  that  body,  we  will  have  the 
propositions  of  decrease  and  increase  voted  on  together. 

Mr.  Hohhs  of  Wolfeboro. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  think 
that  there  is  a  misapprehension  among  the  delegates  of  this 
Convention  as  to  the  feeling  of  a  great  majority  of  the  voters. 
I  think,  Mr.  President,  that  previous  to  1911  there  was  a  feel- 
ing in  favor  of  the  reduction  of  the  House,  but,  since  the  1911 
legislature  closed  its  work,  that  sentiment  has  changed,  and 
that  today  the  feeling  of  country  and  city,  by  the  great  ma- 
jority, is,  leave  the  House  where  it  is  and  increase  the  Senate. 

Now,  whether  or  not  I  am  right  does  not  cut  much  ice,  but, 
!Mr.  President,  I  believe  the  people  should  have  a  chance  to  say 
what  they  want.  If  they  want  to  decrease  the  House,  they 
should  have  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  that  separately;  they 
should  have  that  proposition  by  itself;  and.  if  they  want  to 
increase   the    Senate,   they   should   also   have    the   privilege   to 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  523 

vote  on  that  separately,  without  the  other,  or  vice  versa, — that 
one  should  not  be  hitched  on  to  the  other  to  defeat  one  or 
both.  If  it  is  the  people's  will  that  the  House  be  reduced  and 
the  Senate  stay  where  it  is,  they  should  have  an  opportunity  to 
say  so,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they  should  have  a  chance 
to  increase  the  Senate  and  leave  the  House  where  it  is,  if  they 
wish  that.  Therefore  I  feel  that  we  cannot  be  just  to  the 
voters  on  any  other  proposition  than  to  divide  the  question 
and  let  them  settle  that  matter,  whether  they  want  one  in- 
creased and  the  other  diminshed  or  both  left  right  where  they 
now  are. 

Mr.  President,  that  is  the  only  way  we  can  put  the  matter 
up  to  the  people,  and  get  their  judgment,  and  it  is  their  judg- 
ment I  think  you  want,  and  I  think  we  all  w^ant.  I  thank  you, 
Gentlemen. 

Mr.  Morse  of  Neicniarket. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  desire  to  say,  Mr.  President,  that  I  hope  the 
motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  will 
prevail,  and  this  is  my  reason.'  Now,  I  do  not  want.  Gentle- 
men of  the  Convention,  to  let  another  day  skip  and  not  say 
anything  because  j'ou  would  think  I  was  not  here.  I  did  not 
speak  yesterday  and  you  thought  I  was  absent,  but  I  was  here 
just  the  same. 

I  would  suggest  that  when  a  Committee  contemplates  making 
a  majority  and  minority  report,  that  they  rather  get  together, 
so  they  would  not  go  back  one  on  the  other.  Now,  if  you  let 
these  fellows  have  room  enough,  they  will  let  the  cat  out  of  the 
bag,  and  every  one  of  you  will  be  convinced  that  the  proposition 
that  I  made  to  you  at  the  first  was  the  right  one,  and  that  is, 
to  let  the  House  alone.  The  gentleman  from  Manchester  wants 
to  get  the  milk  of  the  cocoanut  and  the  cocoanut  and  the  skin. 
You  say,  how  is  that?  He  says  we  fellows  in  the  city,  along 
with  you  fellows  in  the  country,  will  defeat  the  proposition  to 
reduce  the  House.  Now,  then,  you  fellows  in  the  country  whom 
we  have  helped,  you  help  us  in  the  city  and  we  will  increase 
the  Senate.  Now,  if  that  isn't  pretty  nearly  the  whole  thing, 
I  would  like  to  know  what  is.  I  have,  Mr.  President,  had  the 
honor  of  being  a  member  of  the  honorable  Senate,  and  the 
devil  isn't  half  as  black  as  some  people  have  tried  to  paint 
him.  The  gentleman  from  Haverhill  speaks  well  and  truthfully 
when  he  says  the  Senate  has  saved  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire thousands  of  dollars.  With  400  unruly  men  in  the  House, 
you  can  pass  almost  any  kind  of  legislation  because  we  want 
about  400  bills, — every  man  w^ants  to  go  home  to  his  constit- 
uency  and   say,   I  had  my  name  in   the   paper   today.   I  intro- 


524    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

duced  a  bill  which  passed  the  House.  That  pleases  his  people, 
his  neighbors,  pleases  himself,  the  same  as  it  has  pleased  me  in 
days  gone  by,  but  when  you  come  right  down  to  legislation, 
it  is  the  Senate  that  passes  upon  those  bills. 

Now,  the  best  argument  that  has  been  advanced,  in  my  judg- 
ment, Mr.  President,  so  far  as  decreasing  the  House  is  con- 
cerned, is  this:  They  say  it  is  unruly.  Well,  400  men,  if  they 
had  any  ginger  in  them  at  all,  would  be  more  unruly  than  300, 
and  300  than  200.  Now,  then,  the  more  unruly  a  body  is,  the 
straighter  and  the  more  honest  has  got  to  be  the  legislation 
to  get  those  men  to  pass  it.  You  can  hoodwink  100  men 
easier  than  200,  and  you  can  hoodwink  200  easier  than  300. 

Now,  they  laughed  at  me,  Mr.  President,  because  I  offered  an 
amendment  and  asked  that  the  House  be  left  at  409.  Now,  fis^ 
I  understand  it,  that  will  be  the  number  of  representatives 
we  will  be  entitled  to  under  the  promulgation  of  the  preseat 
census.  If  you  submit  these  to  the  people,  I  have  every  reason 
to  believe  that  both  of  them  will  be  defeated.  I  hope  they 
will.  I  hope  you  let  the  Senate  alone.  Send  twenty-four  good 
men,  and-  you  are  all  right,  and  send  409  men  that  aren't  sa 
jgood,  and  that  will  be  all  right,  too.  Now,  the  difficulty  that 
you  haven't  got  any  room  for  them  has  been  exploded,  be- 
cause there  are  421  seats, — 409  representatives  are  entitled  to 
sit  in  the  next  House,  and  you  have  got  421  seats,  and  it  will 
be  more  than  ten  years  more  before  you  have  421  representa- 
tives, and  I  want  to  go  on  record  as  being  opposed,  first,  last 
and  all  the  time  to  any  reduction  of  this  House,  and  I  am 
going  to  prophesy, — I  am  not  a  prophet  nor  the  son  of  a 
prophet, — but  you  will  get  most  everlastingly  walloped  in  the 
reduction  of  the  House  when  you  submit  it  to  the  people.  I 
am  not  so  sure  about  the  Senate. 

Mr.  €rOS8  of  Berlin. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  the  argu- 
ment which  has  been  made  by  the  gentlemen  in  favor  of  joining 
these  two  propositions,  if  I  understand  it  correctly,  is  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  increase  in  the  Senate  is  going 
to  be  in  the  cities  at  the  expense  of  the  country  towns.  Now, 
if  you  will  consider  the  question  a  minute,  I  think  you  will  soe 
that  the  increase  is  going  to  come  from  and  benefit  the  small 
country  towns.  Why?  Because  the  representation  in  the  Sen- 
ate, as  the  Constitution  now  stands,  provides  for  a  representa- 
tion on  a  property  basis.  The  Senate  is  districted  according 
to  the  amount  of  money  which  is  paid  into  the  state  tax,  and 
the  cities  pay  $475  out  of  every  $1,000  of  the  state  tax. 

Of  course,  the  bulk  of  the  property  is  in  the  cities  and  large 
towns.    If  you  add  to  the  cities  the   town  of  Exeter  and  the 


Fkiday,  June  21,  1912.  525 

town  of  Lebanon,  or  of  Derrj-,  either  one  of  them,  the  cities 
and  two  of  those  towns  will  pay  more  than  half  the  state  tax. 
Now,  then,  Gentlemen,  in  this  proposition  a  radical  change  is 
made  in  regard  to  the  basis  upon  which  the  Senate  shall  be 
organized.  The  last  vestige  of  property  qualifications  which 
remains  in  our  Constitution  will  be  swept  away.  Originally, 
in  order  to  be  a  member  of  the  Senate,  a  man  had  to  be  wealthy. 
We  have  kept  the  question  of  qualifications  as  to  wealth  out 
of  everything,  except  that  we  have  left  this  one  provision  in 
regard  to  the  Senate.  Now,  Gentlemen,  a  population  basis  is 
the  only  fair  basis.  A  population  basis  will  increase  the  in- 
fluence of  the  small  towns,  and  it  won't  hurt  the  cities. 

I  deprecate  the  idea  of  arraying  the  towns  against  the  cities. 
I  was  brought  up  in  a  small  town,  and  I  love  the  small  towns. 
When  I  found  that  the  towns  were  opposed  to  a  district  sys- 
tem, although  that  provision  was  in  a  proposal  which  I  had 
introduced,  I  said  not  a  word.  If  the  towns  want  to  come  here 
and  be  represented  as  towns,  I  am  inclined  to  have  them.  I 
believe  in  a  good  big  House  of  Representatives;  I  believe  in 
discussion.  I  think  the  questions  which  have  come  up  before 
us  have  been  clarified  by  debate,  almost  universally,  and  we 
get  light  from  the  delegates  of  both  the  towns  and  the  cities. 
We  find  men  who  represent  different  ideas  and  who  look  at 
things  from  different  angles,  and  it  is  beneficial  to  us  all  to  get 
all  the  information  which  we  can  from  every  direction. 

Now,  these  two  propositions  are  both  beneficial,  if  to  any  one 
class,  to  the  towns,  but  the  House  of  Representatives'  decrease 
is  almost  entirely  from  the  cities  and  large  towns.  The  in- 
crease in  the  Senate  will  be  given  very  materially  to  the  small 
towns,  and  it  won't  increase  the  representation  of  the  cities 
so  much.  Both  of  these  propositions  probably  are  good,  both 
of  them  may  become  parts  of  our  Constitution,  but  neither  one 
of  them  should  be  imperilled  by  being  hooked  up  with  the 
other. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancaster. — It  seems  to  me  we  are  acting  hastily. 
Let  us  pause  and  act  as  sensible  men.  I  believe  we  are  sent  here 
for  the  purpose  of  formulating  a  constitutional  amendment 
that  will  make  a  material  reduction  in  the  size  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  The  people  of  the  state  expect  that  of  us 
and  we  shall  be  remiss  in  our  duty  if  we  do  not  present  such 
an  amendment  for  their  action.  We  shall  fail  to  pass  any  reso- 
lution on  this  subject  if  one  member  after  another  stands  up 
here  and  attempts  to  array  the  cities  against  the  towns,  and 
the  towns  against  the  cities.  The  cities  have  their  rights.  The 
towns  have  their  rights.     We  ought  to  approach  this  question 


526     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

in  a  spirit  of  compromise.  We  ought  to  present  a  resolution 
to  the  voters  of  the  state  that  will  stand  at  least  a  fair  chance 
of  being-  adopted.  We  shall  fail  if  we  do  nothing  but  quarrel 
among  ourselves.  We  want  to  adopt  a  resolution,  if  possx'ble, 
that  will  be  satisfactory  alike  to  the  people  of  the  cities  and 
the  towns. 

Now,  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, to  which  the  several  proposed  amendments  were  re- 
ferred, I  have  tried  to  bring  about  a  compromise  between  the 
members  of  the  Committee  from  the  cities  and  the  members 
from  the  towns.  That  compromise  resulted  in  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  Committee.  The  first  resolution 
provides  that  the  Senate  be  increased  to  thirty-six  members,  to 
be  apportioned  on  a  basis  of  population  instead  of  on  a  basis 
of  property.  The  resolution  relating  to  the  House  provides  for 
representation  on  a  basis  of  six  hundred  population  for  the 
first  representative, — that  was  conceded  to  us  by  the  cities, — 
and  twenty-four  hundred  population  for  the  second  representa- 
tive, using  eighteen  hundred  as  the  increasing  mean.  At  the 
public  "hearing  before  the  Committee,  many  persons  appeared 
representing  small  towns,  asking  that  the  number  six  hundred 
be  retained  as  a  basis  for  the  first  representative.  This  ap- 
peared to  be  what  the  towns  wanted.  That  point  was  con- 
ceded by  a  majority  of  the  Committee  from  the  cities,  provided 
that  the  increasing  mean  be  placed  at  eighteen  hundred.  Upon 
this  basis  the  majority  report  of  the  Committee  was  agreed 
upon,  presented  to  the  Convention,  and  is  now  before  you  for 
your  consideration.  I  feel  very  strongly  that  it  should  be 
adopted  and  sent  to  the  people  for  such  action  as  they  may 
deem  wise  to  take. 

A  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  voiced  their 
sentiments  in  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report,  and  I  be- 
lieve they  will  go  before  the  people  and  support  it.  It  may 
not  represent  the  ideas  of  any  individual  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee or  of  this  body.  A  compromise  seldom  does.  I  believe, 
however,  that  it  is  the  only  form  in  which  the  resolution  stands 
any  chance  of  being  adopted  by  both  cities  and  towns.  I  think 
the  people  will  support  the  proposed  amendment  as  embodied 
in  the  majority  report  of  the  Committee,  and  I  hope  the  minor- 
ity report,  with  all  amendments  proposed  thereto,  will  be  voted 
down,  and  that,  in  our  final  action,  the  majority  report  will 
be  adopted. 

Personally,  I  acknowledge  that  I  do  not  believe  in  the  town 
system,  but  you  will  remember,  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
that   you    tied    the    hands   of   your   Committee    last    week.     We 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  527 

were  instructed  to  bring  in  a  resolution  based  on  the  town  sys- 
tem of  representation. 

I  am  going  to  take  just  a  moment  to  explain  what  I  mean  by 
saying  I  do  not  believe  in  the  town  system.  I  believe  we  men 
of  the  small  towns  are  adopting  a  short-sighted  policy  with 
reference  to  this  matter  of  representation.  You  ask  why. 
Don't  you  see,  Gentlemen  of  the  towns,  that  every  decade  the 
cities  and  larger  towns  are  increasing  in  population;  they  aro 
sending  more  representatives  to  the  legislature  each  ten  years. 
The  small  towns  are  decreasing  in  number  and  are  sending 
less  representatives.  How  long,  Gentlemen  of  the  small  towns, 
before  the  cities  will  be  able,  if  they  choose  to  do  so, — I  don't 
say  they  will, — to  throttle  the  small  towns,  and  give  you  a 
district  system  which  you  will  not  want.  Now,  what  I  believe 
the  representatives  of  the  small  towns  should  do  is  to  get 
down  to  the  district  system  and  fix  a  representation  which  will 
not  increase  with  the  increase  of  the  population.  I  would  have 
it  based  upon  the  number  of  voters  and  not  upon  the  popu- 
lation. Then  transient  men,  women  and  children  brought  into 
the  state,  attracted  by  our  lumber  operations,  mills  and  fac- 
tories of  various  kinds,  would  not  count  in  the  matter  of  rep- 
resentation until  they  had  at  least  been  here  long  enough  to 
become  acclimated. 

Now,  I  am  sorry  indeed  that  this  Convention  submitted  these 
resolutions  to  the  Committee  with  the  recommendation  that 
it  did,  because  it  tied  our  hands  so  that  we  could  not  work  out 
what  seemed  to  a  majority  of  the  Committee  the  best  thing  to 
do.  Our  hands  were  tied  and  we  brought  you  a  compromise. 
I  have  the  assurance  of  the  city  members  that  they  will  help 
support  the  resolution.  I  hope  that  every  measure  connected 
with  this  minority  report,  and  every  amendment  to  it,  will  be 
voted  down  until  we  get  to  the  majority  report.  Then  we  shall 
be  ready  to  adopt  that. 

Mr.  WMtcJiej'  of  HavcrJiill. — Will  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster 
permit  me  to  ask  a  question?  How  often  does  his  small  pro- 
rated town  send  a  representative,  or,  if  they  send  every  year, 
how  many? 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lmwasier. — We  send  three  representatives. 

Mr.  Wliitcher  of  norerJnU. — Small  town. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lancastn\ — I  will  explain  to  the  gentleman  from 
Haverhill,  Mr.  Whitcher,  that  I  quite  recently  moved  into  the 
town  of  Lancaster.  I  feel,  however,  that  what  I  have  said  ap- 
plies to  the  cities  and  towns,  whether  large  or  small,  alike. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Tuftnnboroiiqh. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlem'^n  r* 
the  Convention,  T  am  not  here  to  antagonize  or  find  any  fault 


528    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

with  the  cities.  I  am  from  one  of  the  towns  that  has  a  little 
more  than  600  inhabitants,  and  either  of  these  resolutions  will 
satisfy  me  very  well  indeed.  I  am  thankful  I  do  live  in  a  town 
that  these  resolutions  cover,  and  so  the  600  population  is  per- 
fectly satisfactory  to  me. 

Now,  I  am  aware  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  been 
very  liberal  to  the  small  towns  by  way  of  school  money  and 
by  helping  us  with  our  highways,  and  I  hope  they  will  be 
liberal  with  us  in  the  matter  of  representation  in  the  House, 
and  I  think  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  feel  they  ought,  and 
I  am  glad  to  feel  so. 

One  of  these  propositions  is  exactly  what  I  had  here  in  the 
first  place,  what  I  thought  was  correct.  That  was  where  the 
mean  increasing  number  was  2,400,  but  I  would  just  as  soon  ac- 
cept the  1,800  proposition  as  long  as  you  leave  the  first  rep- 
resentative at  600. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  we  were  sent  here  more  particularly  to  con- 
sider the  size  of  the  House  than  for  anything  else.  I  shall  be 
glad  when  I  return  to  my  home  to  be  able  to  say  to  my  towns- 
people that  the  object  for  which  I  came  here,  and  for  which 
they  are  contending,  has  been  completed  in  accordance  with 
their  instructions  to  me.  I  hope  that  one  of  these  resolutions 
will  pass.  I  don't  care  which.  I  will  take  chances  with  the 
cities.  I  advocated  here  on  this  floor  the  other  day  that  we 
should  have  36  or  40  in  the  Senate.  I  shall  insist  on  having 
more  senators,  not  less. 

A  little  additional  expense  should  not  deter  the  state  from 
doing  right  by  all  the  people. 

Mr,  Dunoan  of  Jaffrey. — I  come  from  a  small  town, — not  one 
of  the  very  smallest  towns,  because  we  send  two  representa- 
tives to  the  legislature.  Any  proposition  which  tends  to  de- 
crease the  size  of  the  legislature  will  affect  my  town,  because 
we  have  only  93  more  than  the  necessary  number  to  entitle  us 
to  two  representatives.  It  is,  however,  I  believe,  the  practically 
unanimous  sentiment  of  our  town  that  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives should  be  decreased  somewhat.  So  I  shall  vote  in  favor 
of  some  proposition  to  decrease  the  size  of  the  House  of  Eep- 
resentatives.  At  the  same  time  I  think  I  reflect  the  sentiment 
of  the  people  of  my  town  when  I  say  that  the  Senate  should  be 
increased.  How  much,  I  do  not  know.  I  haven't  made  up  my 
mind  yet,  but  I  certainly  hope  that  we  shall  have  an  opportunity 
to  vote  on  these  two  propositions  separately,  so  that  we  may 
deal  with  them  separately,  and  so  that  the  people,  when  they 
come   to  pass  on  them,   may  also   deal   with   them  separately, 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  529 

and  every  one  have  an  opportunity  to  vote  as  he  wishes  when 
the  time  comes  next  November. 

Mr.  Towle  of  Northtooo4. — I  am  not  in  favor  of  this  amendment 
that  has  been  offered.  I  believe  that  these  two  things  should 
be  tied  together.  How  would  you  feel  to  go  home  to  your 
people  and  say,  "We  have  left  it  so  we  can  decrease  the  House 
and  increase  the  Senate."  When  it  comes  next  fall  perhaps 
send  36  senators  and  409  representatives.  If  one  of  these  goes 
through,  both  should  go;  if  one  dies,  both  should  die.  I  be- 
lieve it  is  for  the  interest  of  the  country  towns  as  well  as  the 
cities  that  these  should  go  to  the  people  together,  and  should 
either  live  or  die  together,  and  I  hope  that  the  members  of  this 
Convention  will  stand  by  one  another,  and  that  the  country 
towns  will  not  oppose  the  cities  to  an  extent  that  this  fall, 
when  this  comes  up  to  be  ratified  by  the  people,  we  shall  get 
into  a  mess  we  shall  be  sorry  for  afterwards.  It  seems  to  me 
we  can  agree  upon  one  of  these  resolutions.  We  can  fix  it  up  in 
such  a  way  that  our  people  will  think  next  fall  we  have  done 
something  at  this  Convention,  and  will  be  pleased  with  the  reso- 
lutions we  have  offered.  It  makes  little  difference  to  us  country 
towns  whether  it  is  1,800  or  2.400.  Nevertheless,  whichever  it  is, 
let  us  send  them  to  the  people  together.     Thank  you. 

Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Matwliester. — I  wish  to  say  a  word  at  this 
time.  I  regret  as  much  as  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me  the 
fact  that  the  issue  between  the  towns  and  the  cities  has  been 
drawn  so  sharply.  Coming  from  the  city  of  Manchester,  I  wish 
to  say  this:  There  are  a  certain  number  of  delegates  here, 
representing  the  city  of  Manchester.  So  far  as  I  know,  our 
delegation  hasn't  pledged  itself  for  or  against  any  plan.  We 
are  here,  the  same  as  you  are,  to  hear  the  arguments  for  and 
against  different  plans,  and  then  make  up  our  minds  how  we 
will  vote. 

I  want  to  say,  because  one  of  the  resolutions  bears  the  name 
of  a  gentleman  from  our  city,  that  this  does  not  mean  our 
members  have  met  and  considered  the  matter,  and  have  finally 
decided  as  to  his  or  any  other  resolution.  On  the  subject  of 
the  division  of  these  two  questions,  I  am  strongly  of  the 
opinion  that  we  will  be  serving  the  interests  of  our  constit- 
uents better  if  we  take  up  the  matter  of  the  Senate  and  the 
House  separately,  for  the  reason  that  a  change  is  contemplated 
in  the  matter  of  the  Senate  other  than  the  mere  change  of 
number.  A  change  is  contemplated  for  dividing  up  the  dis- 
tricts on  the  basis  of  population  rather  than  that  of  property 
valuation.  To  my  mind  that  is  the  desire  of  the  people  of  this 
sta,te.     In  our  own  city,  in  1905,  I  represented  one  district  made 


530     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

up  of  two  wards,  containing  less  than  three  thousand  voters. 
There  is  another  district  in  our  city  which  is  made  up  of  8,000 
voters. 

Now,  I  think  the  questions  ought  to  be  considered  separately 
here  and  go  to  the  people  in  the  form  of  two  separate  questions. 
Whatever  method  we  recommend  on  the  representation  of  the 
House  should  go  in  a  different  recommendation  from  that  of 
the   Senate. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  am  sorry  that  it  has  seemed  necessary  on  the 
pending  motion  to  enter  into  the  scope  of  the  different  meas- 
ures which  have  been  presented  here.  In  fact,  I  do  not  think 
I  will  go  into  details,  which,  I  hope,  we  may  have  a  chance  to 
discuss  a  little  later. 

The  President. — I  don't  think  it  is  in  order. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — I  don't  think  it  is  in  order,  but  I  havfi 
noticed  that  previous  speakers  have  been  going  into  it.  I  am 
just  as  sincere  in  making  my  report  as  are  the  other  gentle- 
men in  making  theirs.  No  charge  of  bad  faith  or  anything 
that  is  derogatory  to  any  man  is  to  be  made  because  of  his 
attitude  on  this  issue,  but,  just  as  true  as  you  and  I  are  here, 
if  the  proposed  changes  in  the  House  and  Senate  are  no^ 
coupled  together  they  won't  be  ratified  by  the  people.  As 
pointed  out  by  their  own  representatives,  the  cities  will  turn 
down  the  proposition  to  reduce  the  House  and  will  approve  the 
increase  in  the  Senate.  This  ought  not  to  be  possible.  Let 
them  go  along  together.  If  we  decrease  the  House,  let's  In- 
crease the  Senate,  and,  if  we  cannot  decrease  the  House,  let's 
not  increase  the  Senate. 

The  measure  before  you,  presented  by  the  minority,  will  re- 
duce the  House  100;  that  is  a  substantial  reduction.  It  will 
take  a  long  time, — fifty  or  seventy-five  years, — before  it  get^J 
back  to  its  present  size.  If  we  stand  together  and  insist  we 
cut  down  the  House  100,  and  then  increase  tlie  Senate  to  86 
we  have  a  proposition  that  we  can  submit  with  confidence  to 
the  people  all  over  the  state,  unless  the  ^members  go  out  of 
this  Convention  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  defeating  it  in 
their  community.  If  we  meet  it  squarely  and  fairly,  and  say 
we  will  try  to  put  through  what  this  Convention  adopts,  I  have 
no  doubt  that  our  action  will  be  approved  by  the  people.  I 
think  it  is  of  prime  importance  to  keep  these  two  matters  to- 
gether. 

Mr.  Leclerc  of  Manchester. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  as 
I  see  these  propositions,  they  are  two  separate,  distinct  resolu- 
tions.   "When  it  comes  before  the  people  it  will  have  to  be  put 


Fkiday,  June  21,  1912.  631 

to  them  in  two  questions,  because  there  are  two  separate 
amendments.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  go  into  the  merits  of  eacn 
resolution.  One  of  them  looks  good  to  me,  the  other  doesn't, 
but  the  motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford,  ought  to  prevail,  not  because  one  is  good  and  the  other 
not  as  good,  but  because  they  are  two  different  questions, 
and  they  ought  to  be  submitted  to  this  Convention  in  the  same 
manner  that  they  will  be  submitted  to  the  people,  separately. 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin. — Gentlemen,  the  gentleman  from  Newp-n-t 
stated  if  this  thing  goes  to  the  people  jointly  it  will  be  ratified, 
and  if  separately  it  will  be  defeated.  I  would  like  to  give  it 
from  information  from  those  I  have  talked  with, — and  I  have 
talked  with  a  good  many, — that  if  we  expect  these  things  to  go 
through  we  must  submit  them  separately,  and  that  is  the  only 
way  we  can  hope  to  change  the  number  in  the  Senate,  and  we 
hope  to  increase  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Pattee  of  Mancliester. — I  am  in  favor  of  a  vote  upon  these 
two  propositions  together.  Now,  we  have  no  need  to  ask  the 
question  why  this  resolution  is  submitted.  There  is  a  demand 
for  it  from  the  people,  and  that  demand  is  for  a  reduction  of 
the  House,  and,  coupled  with  it,  a  demand  for  an  increase  of  the 
Senate.  So  far  as  I  heard,  there  has  been  no  separation,  or 
claim  for  the  reduction  of  the  House  separately,  but  always 
coupled  with  it  was  the  increase  in  the  Senate.  Now,  the  gen- 
tlemen from  Manchester,  some  of  them,  have  suggested  that 
Manchester  would  vote  for  an  increase  in  the  Senate  and  de- 
feat the  other  proposition.  I,  for  one,  as  a  representative  of 
Manchester,  do  not  care  to  see  that  go  through.  If  one  fail.s, 
let  them  both  fail.  I  do  not  believe  in  decreasing  the  House 
and  not  increasing  the  Senate.  I  hope  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  will  be  voted  down. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Smyth  of  Berlin. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention,  I  do  not  wish  to  trespass  on  the  time  of  the 
Convention,  as  it  has  already  been  occupied  in  the  debate  of  this 
question.  I  did  not  intend  to  speak  on  the  question,  deeming 
it  ably  debated  by  gentlemen  that  were  more  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  the  subject  than  I,  and  I  would  not  have  spoken 
at  this  time  had  I  not  paid  particular  attention  to  the  speech 
of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Newport,  Judge  Barton, 
who  has  asserted  that,  if  there  was  no  decrease  in  the  House, 
there  should  be  no  Increase  in  the  Senate;  and  I  rise  to  inquire 
why,  because,  in  my  opinion, — and  I  have  given  the  matter 
some  thought  and  some  study, — the  relation  that  the  Senate 
bears  to  the  present  House  is  greater  in  power,  as  far  as  mj 
knowledge   goes,   than    any    other   representative    body    in    this 


532     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

country,  that  is  to  saj^  that  twelve  men  can  nullify  the  acts  of 
400  chosen  representatives  of  the  people,  which,  in  my  opinion, 
is  out  of  proportion  as  to  what  is  known  as  an  ordinary  House 
and  Senate.  And  for  that  reason  I  am  much  in  favor  of  an  in- 
crease in  the  Senate  of  New  Hampshire,  no  matter  whether 
the  size  of  the  House  is  increased  or  decreased. 

In  regard  to  the  propositions  before  the  Convention,  I  feel 
that  the  gentlemen  who  composed  the  Legislative  Committee 
have  earnestly  tried  to  furnish  to  the  Convention  a  report  of 
a  difficult  question,  coming  from  a  Committee  of  men  who  were 
divided  on  the  different  propositions  before  them,  but  I  also 
feel  that  those  propositions  when  sent  to  the  people  should 
be  acted   on  separately. 

Mr.  Carter  of  Lebanon. — Mr.  President,  as  a  member  of  the 
Legislative  Committee,  I  find  myself  one  of  the  minority  for 
two  reasons.  One  reason  is  because  it  has  appealed  to  me  from 
the  beginning,  as  has  been  stated  by  several  gentlemen,  that 
if  we  decrease  the  House,  then  we  might  increase  the  Senate, 
and  if  we  did  not  decrease  the  House,  then  we  ought  not  to 
increase  the  Senate.  This  I  believe  in  thoroughly,  and  there- 
fore I  stand  with  the  minority  on  that  ground.  And  as  I  have 
considered  this  resolution  it  has  appealed  to  me  as  being 
about  fair,  as  many  of  the  gentlemen  have  said  they  have  come 
here  almost  instructed  by  their  constituents  to  vote  for  the 
decrease  in  the  House.  There  is  a  very  strong  sentiment  In 
favor  of  this,  and  this  amendment  which  has  been  proposed 
would  reduce  the  House  about  100.  It  may  be  too  much,  but 
I  think  if  I  should  go  home  to  my  people  they  would  say,  "Why 
didn't  you  reduce  the  House  more?"  You  want  to  reduce  it 
60,  why  not  reduce  it  a  hundred?  I  feel  that  300  would  be 
much  better  than  340  or  345.  Now,  the  larger  towns,  like  my 
own  town,  lose  two  representatives.  Lebanon  will  have  three 
instead  of  five.  I  think  they  will  be  as  well  served  by  these 
three  as  they  would  be  by  five.  I  am  aware  the  city  of  Man- 
chester would  have  but  thirty-one.  Now,  Gentlemen,  if  the 
city  of  Manchester  had  half  a  dozen  men  to  send  here  who 
had  the  competency,  the  courtesy  and  the  ability  to  do  things 
as  some  of  the  gentlemen  they  have  sent  to  this  Convention, 
I  am  sure  the  interests  of  Manchester  would  not  suffer,  and 
it  seems  to  me,  in  sending  31,  if  they  select  some  of  these  gen- 
tlemen to  look  after  the  interests  of  the  city  they  will  be  welT 
looked  after.  I  hope  this  minority  report  will  be  accepted  by 
this  Convention,  and  I  hope  that  these  two  resolutions  will  be 
acted  upon  together  for  the  reasons  I  have  given. 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  633 

Mr.  Stevens  of  Land<iff. — Mr.  President,  the  question  at  the 
present  moment  before  the  House  is  whether  these  two  things 
shall  be  considered  together  or  separately,  and  I  want  to  say 
first,  forestalling  any  question  from  the  gentleman  from  Haver- 
hill, that  I  come  from  a  town  that  has  one  representative,  and 
it  doesn't  have  that  all  the  time. 

I  believe  that  these  two  measures  should  be  considered  sep- 
arately. They  were  considered  separately  in  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  and  they  were  sent  to  the  Standing  Committee  under 
special  instructions,  and  they  have  been  brought  back  here  tie.l 
up  together.  They  do  not  belong  together.  There  are  actu- 
ally three  questions  involved, — whether  the  House  shall  be 
made  smaller;  whether  the  representation  in  the  Senate  shall 
be  on  a  basis  of  population  or  of  wealth,  and  whether  the 
Senate  shall  be  increased  in  size.  There  are  three  ques- 
tions all  tied  up  here  together.  Now,  if  these  are  put  up 
separately,  everyfman  who  has  an  opinion  on  the  questions 
will  have  a  fair  chance  to  express  his  opinion.  If  he  thinks 
that  the  House  should  be  reduced  and  the  Senate  increased, 
he  can  vote  that  way;  if  he  thinks  the  House  should  be  left 
where  it  is,  he  can  vote  that  way;  or  that  the  Senate  should 
be  increased,  he  can  vote  for  that.  This  gives  every  man  in 
this  Convention,  and  it  will  give  every  citizen  in  this  state,  a 
fair  opportunity  to  express  the  exact  opinion  that  he  has  on 
this  subject.  If  you  tie  them  up  together,  it  cannot  be  done. 
I  haven't  had  time  to  figure  it  out  yet,  just  what  effect  it  is 
going  to  have  on  Landaff,  to  put  the  Senate  on  the  basis  of 
population,  where  it  ought  to  have  been  fifty  years  ago.  I 
don't  care.  If  putting  it  on  a  basis  of  population  gives  the 
cities  in  this  state  half  the  Senate,  I  would  vote  for  it.  It  ought 
to  be  there.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  have  been  told  by  men 
who  have  figured  it  out  that  it  will  leave  it  about  where  it  is 
now. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord 
appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  and  177  gentlemen  voting  in  the  af- 
firmative and  104  gentlemen  voting  in  the  negative,  the  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Lyford  to  strike  out  prevailed. 


534    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  ^Ir.  Barton  of  Newport 
to  substitute  the  minority  report  as  amended  for  the  report 
of  the  majority, — 

(Mr.  Morse  of  Newmarket  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord'. — Mr.  President, — 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — I  will  rise  to  point  of  order.  The 
mover  of  a  motion  has  the  first  right  to  discuss  it. 

The  President. — He  does  if  he  gets  recognized  first. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to 
yielding  to  the  gentleman  from  Newport. 

Mr.  Burton  of  Newport.— <jo  ahead. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — He  says  go  ahead.  I  intend  to  take 
the  time  of  this  Convention  but  very  briefl3'.  You  all  know 
the  position  that  I  take  on  this  subject  of  representation. 
You  know  I  believe  in  the  district  system  based  upon  the  ac- 
tual votes  instead  of  upon  population  and  that  if  we  had  had 
the  data  I  should  have  prepared  an  amendment  that  I  believe 
would  have  been  acceptable  to  a  majority  of  this  Convention 
and  to  the  people.  The  Convention,  however,  has  voted  dif- 
ferently. It  has  instructed  the  Committee  on  Legislative  De- 
partment to  bring  in  a  resolution  that  would  provide  for  a 
House  of  not  exceeding  350  members.  The  Committee  on  Leg- 
islative Department,  as  I  think,  sacrificed  all  its  individual 
opinions  in  an  effort  to  bring  before  this  Convention  a  meas- 
ure that  might  stand  some  chance  of  being  ratified  by  the 
people.  The  Committee  has  considered  itself  the  servant  of 
this  body.  Our  proposition  as  presented  here  recognizes  the 
demand  made  by  members  from  the  smaller  towns  of  the  stato 
that  the  population  for  the  first  representative  should  not  be 
increased  above  600.  We  endeavored  then  to  reach  a  mean  of 
increase  that  was  most  likely  to  meet  the  approval  of  the 
people  from  the  cities  and  the  large  towns,  from  whom  all  re- 
duction is  taken,  that  we  might  have  a  proposition  that  we 
ourselves  would  not  feel  obliged  to  oppose  before  the  people. 
The  majority,  in  fact  almost  all  but  four  or  five  of  the  twenty 
members  of  the  Committee,  agreed  upon  this  proposition  that 
we  are  submitting  to  you.  It  is  immaterial  to  the  members 
of  this  Committee  who  have  signed  this  majority  report,  as 
far  as  they  may  be  considered  as  individuals,  whether  you  ac- 
cept orur  report  or  that  of  the  minority,  and  the  only  question 
that  I  desire  to  present  to  you  is  this:  In  both  propositions  all 
the  reduction  is  taken  out  of  the  cities  and  large  towns.  We  who 
represent  the  cities  and  large  towns  ask  you,  in  the  spirit  of 
fairness,  if  you  are  willing  to  give  us  a  proposition  upon  which 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  535 

we  can  go  to  our  constituents  and  ask  them  to  ratify  your 
work.  The  proposition  that  is  brought  here  reduces  the  House 
65  members.  The  other  proposition  reduces  it  100  members. 
I  don't  care  to  discuss  the  details  of  the  matter  at  all,  and  I 
may  not  speak  on  this  subject  again  unless  it  is  necessary  to 
defend  some  position  we  have  taken.  The  question  is  up  to 
you  whether  you  want  our  help  in  its  ratification  or  whether 
you  propose  to  put  upon  us  something  that  we  are  obliged 
to  oppose. 

Mr.  Flandet'S  of  HiUsbm-ougli. — I  think  strong  arguments  can 
be  made  in  favor  of  this  minority  report.  If  the  majority  re- 
port is  adopted  it  will  cut  the  representation  in  fourteen  towns 
and  fifteen  wards  of  cities  fifty  percent.  It  has  been  stated 
here  by  gentlemen  who  have  looked  it  up  that  it  would  reduce 
the  House  only  about  65  members.  Now,  I  claim  that  on  these 
twenty-nine  towns  and  wards  of  cities  it  is  placing  too  great 
a  sacrifice.  We  are  asking  them  to  furnish  29  of  that  65. 
Now,  is  that  faif?  We  in  the  towns,  who  are  going  to  sacri- 
fice fifty  percent  of  our  representation,  are  willing  to  adopt, 
and  our  constituents  will  sustain  us,  the  minority  report,  but 
we  say  the  majority  report  is  unfair  and  unjust,  and  we  shall 
vote  against  it  here;  our  constituents  will  vote  against  ifc, 
whenever  it  is  voted  upon,  if  you  place  such  a  sacrifice  to  ac- 
complish so  little.  Now,  if  the  minority  report  is  adopted,  it 
will  reduce  the  House  about  100,  and  we  shall  be  sacrificing 
and  others  will  be  sacrificing,  and  half  of  the  reduction  will  not 
be  placed  on  29  towns  and  city  wards — 14  towrus  and  15  city 
wards.  Gentlemen,  I  believe  that  the  minority  report  should 
prevail,  and  I  hope  that  it  will. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Ixunoaster. — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman 
if  he  has  not  made  a  mistake  in  his  figures?  The  minority  re- 
port starts  with  600  inhabitants  for  one  representative  and 
then  makes  the  increasing  mean  2,400,  and  the  majority  report 
80-0— 

Mr.  Flanders  of  Hillsborough. — I  understand  all  that.  Towns 
below  600  make  no  sacrifice.  Towns  between  600  and  1,800,  by 
either  resolution,  make  no  sacrifice.  Then  comes  the  sacri- 
fice, and  here  is  where  the  fourteen  towns  and  fifteen  city 
wards  come  in.  If  you  make  the  mean  increasing  number  1,800, 
it  will  cut  the  representation  of  fourteen  towns  and  fifteen  city 
wards  fifty  percent,  and  they  make  about  half  the  sacrifice 
of  the  whole  reduction.  Now,  I  say  that  is  unfair.  It  is  too 
big  a  sacrifice  to  ask  of  us  for  what  we  accomplish.  Now, 
adopt  the  minority  report,  reduce  it  100,  so  that  it  will  not  have 
to  be  reduced  again  for  forty  years.     Let  others  sacrifice  with 


636      Journal  of  Constitutional  Coi^ventiox.    . 

these  twenty-nine  towns  and  wards,  and  then  I  believe  it  will 
be  ratified  here,  and  be  ratified  by  the  people.  It  is  just  this: 
Of  that  sixty-five  that  the  majority  report  is  going  to  reduce 
this  House,  twenty-nine  towns  and  city  wards  furnish  half  of 
it.     That  is  the  whole  question  stated  in  a  nutshell. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. — My  associates  and  myself  are 
fortunate  in  one  thing.  We  come  here  without  any  instruc- 
tions on  any  question.  When  matters  come  before  the  Con- 
vention we  are  here  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  our  judg- 
ment to  the  best  of  our  ability,  after  learning  what  we  can 
from  the  members  of  the  Convention,  and  what  we  can  get  for 
ourselves.  Now,  I  find  myself  in  the  position  of  disagreeing 
with  my  friend,  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  for  whom  I 
have  great  respect.  Ten  years  ago  I  was  in  the  Convention 
and  advocated  that  the  first  unit  should  be  fixed  at  600.  The 
Convention  decided  otherwise  and  made  it  800.  Now,  in  my 
judgment,  that  was  what  defeated  that  measure  before  the  peo- 
ple. I  think  that  with  the  unit  of  600,  and  with  the  next  number 
at  1,800,  the  amendment  is  more  likely  to  carry  than  600  and 
2,400.  And  why?  Because,  so  far  as  the  cities  are  concerned, 
it  gives  them  a  larger  representation.  So  far  as  the  large 
towns  are  concerned,  it  gives  them  a  larger  representation. 
Now,  for  instance,  in  the  town  of  Exeter  we  have  today  four 
representatives.  I  agree  that  we  could  just  as  well  be  repre- 
sented by  two,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  my  fellow  citizens, 
who  are  ambitious  to  come  to  the  legislature,  will  agree  to 
that  or  not.  I  am  inclined  to  think,  if  you  make  the  first 
unit  600  and  the  next  1,800,  you  are  going  to  get  more  votes 
from  the  cities  and  large  towns  than  on  the  proposition  to 
make  the  second  unit  2,400,  which  reduces  their  number  more 
than  it  does,  of  course,  with  the  unit  at  1,800.  I  think  it  ap- 
peals more  to  the  people  of  the  cities  and  the  larger  towns 
to  make  that  unit  1,800.  I  am  in  favor  of  that  proposition.  It 
does  not  decrease  the  House  very  much.  One  gentleman  has 
said  it  only  decreases  the  House  6o,  and  if  the  other  propo- 
sition is  accepted,  it  reduces  the  number  to  the  extent  of  about 
100.  Now,  the  difference  between  65  and  100,  Gentlemen,  does 
not  amount  to  anything.  What  does  it  amount  to?  Of  course, 
I  have  a  little  different  view  than  some  of  you  have,  be- 
cause I  come  without  any  instructions,  and  have  no  fear,  when 
I  return  home,  that  I  shall  be  clubbed  or  stoned  in  the  streets 
of  Exeter,  if  I  should  happen  to  vote  not  to  reduce  the  size  of 
the  House.  I  think  the  proposition  made  by  the  majority  of 
the  Committee  is  one  that  is  more  likely  to  carry.  By  it  we  get 
the  representation  from  the  small  towns,  and  I  am  in  favor  of 


Friday,  June  21,  1912.  537 

that  representation;  I  am  in  favor  of  the  small  towns.  We  are 
reminded  a  good  many  times  about  the  equality  of  the  district 
system.  We  have  passed  by  that.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss 
the  district  system.  We  have  ended  that.  If  that  qciestion  were 
before  the  Convention  I  should  be  pleased  to  argue  the  district 
system  on  its  merits  as  compared  with  the  town  system.  I  hope 
the  majority  report,  as  far  as  representation  in  the  House  i?i 
concerned,  will  prevail,  because  I  think  that  proposition  will 
appeal  to  the  cities  and  the  larger  towns  more  strongly  than 
the  other  proposition,  which  is  submitted  here  by  the  minority 
of  the  Committee.  And,  for  the  reason  that  I  have  solely  in 
mind  the  benefit  which  will  accrue  to  the  small  towns,  I  say 
you  have  got  to  concede  something  to  the  larger  towns  and 
cities.  We  cut  down  the  House  65  members  by  the  majority 
report,  and  I  hope,  therefore,  as  I  have  said,  that  the  majority 
report,  as  far  as  the  representation  in  the  House  is  concerned, 
will  prevail.  When  w-e  get  to  the  matter  of  the  Senate  I  have 
a  notion  about  that. 

Mr.  Oakes  of  Lisbon. — ^Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  I  am  re- 
minded of  a  story  that  I  read  a  few  days  ago  of  a  little  inci- 
dent which  took  place  in  the  United  States  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

One  very  well  known  congressman  was  arguing  in  favor  of  a 
certain  measure,  which  had  to  do  with  the  Spanish  war,  and 
he  waxed  very  eloquent,  and  he  said,  "I  gave  my  grandfather 
to  the  Mexican  war;  I  gave  my  father  to  the  Civil  war,  and  I 
am  willing  to  give  my  son  to  the  Spanish  war,  in  the  cause  of 
freedom."  Uncle  Joe  Cannon  leaned  over  to  a  colleague  and 
said,  "He  is  mighty  generous  with  his  relations,  isn't  he?"  I 
think  that  is  the  way  we  are  doing  here.  We  are  mighty  gener- 
ous with  somebody  else's  representatives.  If  we  come  within  a 
certain  figure  we  are  perfectly  willing  that  that  should  be 
adopted,  but  if  we  come  outside  that  figure  we  have  no  use  for 
it.  I  do  not  care  whether  the  increasing  mean  is  made  1,800  or 
whether  it  is  made  2,400,  although  the  2,400  proposition  will  cut 
my  town  out  of  one  representative.  I  don't  care  which  one  is 
adopted.  All  I  ask  is  that  the  gentlemen  who  come  from  towns 
of  600  and  less  than  2,400  and  have  got  their  representative  any- 
way,— and  all  the  other  people, — will  consider  carefully  which 
plan  is  going  to  meet  with  the  approval  of  the  people.  There  is 
no  use  theorizing  any  longer.  On  theory  the  district  system 
is  the  proper  one,  but  we  tried  out  the  district  system  and  it 
didn't  work.  Now,  theoretically,  an  increasing  mean  of  2,400 
is  better  than  1,800,  but  let's  lay  that  right  aside,  and  use  our 


538      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

"best  judgment  and  our  best  common  sense,  and  if  we  think, 
after  hearing  the  opinions  of  the  men  from  the  cities  and  the 
men  from  the  larger  towns,  that  it  is  impossible  to  get  the 
people  to  ratify  the  plan  of  2,400  for  the  increasing  mean,  let's 
reject  it,  and  get  on  to  the  other;  but  in  any  event  let's  all  get 
together  and  try  to  adopt  something  that  will  do   some  good. 

Mr.  Leclerc  of  Mmiclvester. — Mr.  President  and  Members  of  the 
Convention,  we  must  propose  such  amendments  to  the  people 
as  we  think  they  will  ratify.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you,  Gentle- 
men,— and  it  makes  no  difference  whether  you  come  from  the 
small  towns,  the  large  towns  or  the  cities, — if  it  is  fair  to  have 
a  small  town  of  600,  or  a  little  over,  have  one  representative, 
and  have  some  large  ward  or  some  town  having  four  or  five 
times  that  number  have  two  or  three  representatives?  As  I 
said  before,  the  members  of  the  Convention  must  propose  some- 
thing to  the  people  that  we  know  or  think  they  will  ratify. 
Approximately  half  of  the  voters  of  this  state  live  in  large 
towns  and  cities.  Do  you  think  for  a  moment  they  are  going 
to  cut  down  the  representation,  which  today  isn't  fair?  Do 
you  think  that  they  are  going  to  vote  for  something  that  is 
still  worse?  We  have  wasted  a  lot  of  time  discussing  this  and 
should  come  to  a  vote,  or  else  reject  both  the  minority  and 
majority  reports  of  the  Committee.  It  is  a  pretty  sure  thing 
that  both  of  these  measures  will  be  defeated  when  they  come 
before  the  people  for  ratification. 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin. — Do  I  understand  that  the  way  to  get  at 
the  majority  report  is  to  vote  against  this  proposition  that  is 
before  us? 

The  President. — The  question  is.  Shall  the  report  of  the  minor- 
ity be  substituted  for  that  of  the  majority? 

Mr.  Wolf  of  Berlin  moved  that  the  Convention  proceed  to 
vote  in  ten  minutes. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Wolf, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport 
to  substitute  the  report  of  the  minority  as  amended  for  the 
report  of  the  majority, — 

Mr.  Barton  of  Neivport. — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  none  of 
the  Committee,  no  more  than  Mr.  Lyford,  have  any  special  pride 
in  their  report.    We  have  worked  for  the  common  good  of  the 


FiiiDAY,  June  21,  1912.  539 

people  along  lines  which  we  think  are  best.  I  am  here  to  sup- 
port this  measure  because  I  think  it  is  right.  We  have  met  in 
a  Convention  after  an  aidjournment  of  something  like  ten  years 
to  see  whether  or  not  we  would  revise  the  Constitution  with 
respect  to  representation.  Had  it  not  been  for  this  subject - 
matter  this  Convention  would  not  have  been  called.  The  only- 
question  now  is,  whether  we  want  to  so  fix  things,  at  this  time, 
that  we  shall  have  to  call  another  Convention  in  the  next  ten 
or  twenty  years,  or  fix  them  so  that,  as  far  as  this  feature  is 
concerned,  we  maj^  not  have  to  call  a  Convention  for  fifty  years. 
Now,  the  only  advantage  in  substituting  the  minority  report  for 
that  of  the  majority  is  that  it  defers  the  time  when  you  will 
have  to  call  another  Constitutional  Convention.  The  small 
towns  stand  alike  in  both  reports.  Shall  we  cut  down  the 
House  about  sixty  members  or  shall  we  cut  it  down  100? 
That  is  all  there  is  involved  in  the  motion  before  the  Com- 
mittee. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  negative  appeared  to  prevail. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  called  for  a  division. 

Division  being  had,  120  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  142  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion  to 
substitute  did  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Young  of  Charlestown  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  call  not  being  seconded  by  the  required  number, — 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  not  ordered. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation 
of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  that  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  proposed  in  the  resolution  be  agreed  to  by  the 
Convention, — 

On  that  question  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  demanded  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

The  call  was  seconded  by  the  following  gentlemen: — 
Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Manchester,  Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill,  Mr. 
Martin  of  Concord,  Mr.  Smith  of  Berlin,  Mr.  Hoyt  of  Madi- 
son, Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Fremont,  Mr. 


540     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Quimby  of  Concord,  Mr.  Cavanaugh  of  Manchester,  and  Mr. 
Fuller  of  Exeter. 

Mr.  Lyford)  of  Concord. — ^Let  me  inquire  of  tlie  gentlemen  of 
the  minority  if  they  are  satisfied  with  this  proposition. 
Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. — Why  certainly. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  withdrew  Ms  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  w'hom  were  referred  various  proposed  amend- 
ments in  relation  to  increasing  the  number  of  members  of 
the  Senate,  and  changing  the  basis  of  representation,  with 
instructions  to  report  an  amendment  that  should  provide  for 
an  increase  of  the  Senate,  with  a  change  of  basis  to  popu- 
lation, having  considered  the  same,  report  the  following  reso- 
lution, with  the  recommendation  that  the  resolution  be 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention: — 

Eeisolution  No.  61. 

Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  24  and  25  of  Part  Second  of  the 
Constitution  be  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Art.  24.  The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-six  members 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years  from  the  first 
Wednesday  of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  Senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  di- 
vide the  state  into  thirty-six  districts  of  contiguous  terri- 
tory as  nearly  equal  as  may  be  without  dividing  towns  and 
unincorporated  places,  on  the  basis  of  population  according 
to  the  last  census  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state. 


Feiday,  June  21,  1912.  541 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  of  the 
Committee  adopted,  and  the  resolution  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  oq  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  were  referred  Eesolution  No.  2,  Relat- 
ing to  the  Senate,  Resolution  No.  17,  Relating  to  the  Senate, 
Resolution  No.  25,  Relating  to  the  Senate,  and  Resolution 
No.  43,  Relating  to  the  Senate,  having  considered  the  same, 
report  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: — 

Besohed,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed  in  the  resolutions. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  for  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  to  whom  were  referred  Resolution  No.  26,  Re- 
lating to  Election  of  Representatives  in  Cities  and  Towns  of 
less  than  800  Inhabitants,  Resolution  No.  1,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  13,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  14,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  15,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  18,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Resolution  No.  22,  Relating  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  Resolution  No.  35,  Relating 
to  the  House  of  Representatives,  having  considered  the  same, 
report  the  same  with  the  following  recommendation: — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed,  the  subject  matter  of  all  of  said  resolutions,  hav- 
ing been  reported  in  a  new  draft. 

The  report  -was  accepted  and  the  recommendation  adopted. 

(Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  in  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  MitcJiell  of  Concord. — Mr.  President,  approaching*,  as  we  are, 
the  conclusion  of  our  work,  with  which  I  trust  the  people  will 


642   Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

be  satisfied,  there  is  one  resolution  that  I  know  this  Conven- 
tion desires  to  unanimously  adopt,  and  that  is  the  one  which 
I  am  now  about  to  propose. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution 
and  moved  its  adoption: — 

Resolved,  That  the  sincere  thanks  of  this  Convention  be 
tendered  the  able,  impartial  and  efficient  President  of  this 
Convention,  for  the  untiring  industry  exhibited,  the  impar- 
tiality with  w^hich  he  has  administered  the  trust  committed 
to  him,  and  the  success  with  which  he  has  brought  through 
the  arduous  and  delicate  duties  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Wason  of  NasJma. — Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  secopd  the 
motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  and  in  doing  that 
it  gives  me  pleasure  to  sincerely  say,  and  I  think  I  can  truth- 
fully say  I  voice  the  sentiments  of  every  member  of  this  Con- 
vention, that,  since  we  assembled  here,  those  of  you  and  of 
us  who  did  not  know  our  President  intimately  have  learned 
to  like  him  and  to  love  him.  In  all  his  dealings  with  us  he 
has  exhibited  a  spirit  of  fairness,  a  spirit  of  clearness,  and 
taken  a  position  on  every  question  to  encourage  a  short  meet- 
ing, to  do  our  work  well,  to  do  it  carefully,  and  do  it  in  a 
manner  that  will  meet  the  approval  of  our  constituents,  and, 
I  hope,  the  people  of  the  state  when  submitted  to  them.  It  is 
no  easy  task,  Mr.  President,  to  preside  over  a  body  of  this  size. 
It  is  no  easy  task  to  keep  the  unruly  members  on  this  floor  in 
order,  but  from  the  beginning  until  now  order  has  prevailed 
and  we  have  proceeded  with  the  duties  assigned  to  us  with 
despatch,  and  it  is  due  to  the  guiding  hand  of  the  captain  of 
the  ship,  our  honored  President. 

Mr.  Whitcher  of  Haverhill. — Mr.  President,  I  do  not  wish  to 
multiply  words,  but  I  heartily  second  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Judge  Mitchell,  and  hope  that  when  we 
vote  it  may  be  a  rising  vote  to  tender  our  honored  President 
our  sincere  thanks  for  his  able,  impartial  conduct  of  the  affairs 
of  this  Convention.  His  name  will  go  down  in*  history  with 
the  names  of  his  honored  predecessors  who  have  presided  over 
Constitutional  Conventions,  the  first  within  my  recollection,  and 
whose  portrait  hangs  in  this  hall,  was  afterwards  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  the  wrangling,  disorderly  Con- 


Fkiday,  June  21,  1912.  543 

vention  in  Chicago  could  do  worse  than  to  nominate  the  Hon- 
orable Edwin  F.  Jones  for  the  same  office. 

Mr.  Duncan  of  Jaffrey. — Mr.  President,  as  a  representative  of 
those  who  have  successively  met  defeat  upon  some  of  their 
pet  measures,  I  wish  to  second  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Judge  Mitchell,  and  to  offer  to  our  President 
my  heartiest  and  our  heartiest  congratulations  for  the  able 
manner  in  which  he  has  presided  over  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Goffstown. — Mr.  President,  in  behalf  of  those  who 
have  not  appeared,  I  want  to  second  what  has  been  said  rela- 
tive to  the  thanks  which  they  wish  to  extend  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  this  Convention.  We  wish  to  thank  him  for  the  efficient 
and  the  courteous  manner  in  which  he  has  presided  over  this 
body. 

On  a  rising  vote  the  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

The  Presidmt.— ^Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  for  the  vote 
which  you  have  just  passed,  and  for  the  manner  in  which  you 
have  passed  it,  I  would  return  to  you  my  sincere  thanks.  1 
do  not  think  that  the  President  of  this  Convention  is  deserv- 
ing of  all  the  kin'd  words  that  have  been  said.  I  think  that 
the  President  has  only  done  what  he  ought  to  do,  and  that 
was  to  preside  over' the  body  as  best  he  could,  with  the  idea 
of  facilitating  business  and  reaching  a  conclusion  as  soon  a:i 
it  could  be  done  without  interfering  with  the  proper  considera- 
tion by  the  members  of  all  measures  brought  before  the  Con- 
vention. The  Chair  has  undertaken  to  be  fair.  If  he  has  suc- 
ceeded in  that,  and  if  you  feel  that  he  has  been  so,  then  he  is 
amply  repaid. 

I  trust.  Gentlemen,  that  the  work  of  this  Convention,  when 
it  comes  to  be  considered  by  the  people,  will  be  found  not  to 
have  been  the  result  of  wasted  time.  Some  of  the  amendments 
which  we  have  agreed  to  are  of  great  importance  to  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire.  The  people  will  have  the  chance  to  vote 
upon  them,  and,  when  they  consider  that  amongst  those  meas- 
ures is  one  which  will  take  away  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  any 
expression  derogatory  to  the  religious  convictions  of  any  class 
of  Christian  men  and  women  in  New  Hampshire,  it  does  seem 
that  they  will  consider  that  a  goo'd  thing,  and  one  which  it 
would  be   proper  for  them  to  ratify. 

And,  when  we  consider  the  matter  of  taxation,  it  seems  to 
me  that  we  have  gone  a  long  way, — not  quite  so  far  as  the 
Stevens   amendment   would   have  gone, — but  that  in   the   three 


544     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

amendments  which  are  being  submitted  to  the  people  we  arc 
giving  to  the  legislature  all  the  power  that  it  ought  to  have 
in  dealing  with  the  great  question  of  taxation,  limiting  it  still 
by  the  reasonable  and  proportional  rule  of  the  Constitution, 
which  is  to  be  unchanged. 

The  matter  of  plurality  election  of  officers  is  important. 

The  matter  of  changing  the  basis  of  representation  in  the 
councillor  districts  and  in  the  Senate  of  the  state  is  a  great 
advance. 

The  proposal  to  give  to  the  Governor  of  the  state  the  right 
to  veto  certain  items  in  an  appropriation  bill  which  he  disap- 
proves of,  without  endangering  the  whole  measure,  is  a  step 
in  the  right  direction.  It  seems  to  me  that  all  these  dozen 
amendments  to  which  we  have  agreed  are  giving  to  the  people 
something  which  they  can  clearly  understand,  and  that,  hav- 
ing considered  them  carefully,  they  will  vote  favorably  upon 
most  of  them. 

You  will  remember,  in  the  few  words  which  I  said  at  the  be- 
ginning of  your  duties,  I  hoped  that  the  old  Constitution  would 
not  be  amended  so  that  its  friends  would  not  know  it.  This 
Convention  has  been,  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say,  a  conservative 
Convention,  but  not  too  conservative.  It  has  been  in  favor  of 
some  things  in  the  line  of  progress.  I  believe  that  this  Con- 
vention and  its  work,  if  ratified  by  the  people,  will  have  the 
result  that  New  Hampshire  can  still  stand  among  those  who 
shall  "Be  not  the  first  by  whom  the  new  is  tried,  nor  yet  the 
last  to  lay  the  old  aside." 

We  have  been  conservatively  progressive  and  progressively 
conservative,  and  if  the  people,  in  most  respects,  shall  look 
upon  our  work  in  the  same  way  that  we  have,  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  I  believe,  cannot  fail  to  be  benefited. 

Once  more.  Gentlemen,  I  thank  you. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hobbs  of  "Wolfeboro,  the  Convention 
adjourned  at  5.29  o'clock. 

SATURDAY,  June  22,  1912. 

The  Convention  met  at  10.3Q  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

(The  President  in  the  Chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  Charles  C.  G-ar- 
^and. 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  646 

The  reading  of  the  Journal  having  begun, — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hurd  of  Claremont,  the  further  reading 
of  the  Journal  was  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry,  for  the  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
Agreed  to  by  the  Convention  presented  the  following  re- 
port:— 

The  State  of  N^ew  Hamipshiiie. 

In  the  Year  of  Our  Lord  One  Thousand  Nine  Hundred  and 

Twelve. 

In  the  Convention  of  delegates  assembled  at  Concord  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  twelve,  for  the  purpose  of  revising 
the  Constitution  of  this  state,  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  the 
legislature  passed  April  15,  1911. 

I.  Resolved:  That  the  alterations  and  amendments  pro- 
posed to  the  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state  at  the  regular  biennial  election  to  be 
holden  on  the  Tuesday  next  following  the  first  Monday  in 
November,  1912,  to  be  by  said  voters  acted  upon  at  said  meet- 
ings. 

II.  Resolved:  That  the  selectmenn  of  the  several  towns, 
wards  and  places  in  the  state  be  and  are  hereby  directed  to 
insert  in  their  warrants  calling  the  said  meetings  an  article 
to  the  following  effect:  to  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified 
voters  whether  the  alterations  and  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution proposed  by  the  Constitutional  Convention  shall  be 
approved. 

III.  Resolved:  That  the  sense  of  the  qualified  voters  shall 
be  taken  by  ballot  upon  each  of  the  following  questions  sub- 
mitted to  them  by  the  Convention. 


546    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

1.  Do  you  approve  of  increasing  the  Senate  to  thirty-six 
members,  and  dividing  the  state  into  senatorial  districts  on 
the  basis  of  population; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to 
the  Constitution? 

2.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  provision  as  to  repre- 
sentation in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  making  600  in- 
habitants necessary  to  the  election  of  one  representative  and 
2400  inhabitants  necessary  for  two  representatives  and  1800 
necessary  for  each  additional  representative ;  with  the  proviso 
that  a  town,  ward,  x)r  place  having  less  than  600  inhabitants 
may  send  a  representative  a  proportionate  part  of  the  time; 
or  that  such  towns,  wards,  and  places  when  contiguous  may 
unite  to  elect  a  representative,  if  each  town  so  decides  by 
major  vote; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion? 

3.  Do  you  approve  of  giving  the  Covernor  authority  to 
approve  or  disapprove  any  separate  appropriation  contained 
in  any  bill  or  resolution; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to 
the  Constitution? 

4.  Do  you  approve  of  the  requirement  that  the  legisla- 
ture, in  dividing  the  state  into  councilor  districts,  shall  be 
governed  by  the  population; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment 
to  the  Constitution? 

5.  Do  you  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to  im- 
pose a  tax  upon  the  incomes  of  public  service  corporations 
and  voluntary  associations  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon  their 
property; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion? 

6.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  Bill  of  Rights  by 
striking  out  the  words  "rightly  grounded  on  evangelical 
principles"  after  the  words  "As  morality  and  piety,"  and 
striking  out  the  word  "Protestant"  before  the  words  "teach- 
ers of  piety,  religion,  and  morality"; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

7.  Do  you  approve  of  providing  that  no  person  shall  have 
the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  for  office,  who  shall  have  been 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  547 

convicted  of  treason,  bribery,  or  wilful  violation  of  election 
laws,  with  the  right  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  restore  such 
privileges; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion? 

8.  Do  you  approve  of  having  the  Grovernor,  councilors, 
and  senators,  elected  by  plurality  instead  of  majority  vote; — 
as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

9.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  Bill  of  Eights  by 
striking  out  the  provision  that  pensions  shall  not  be  granted 
for  more  than  one  year  at  a  time; — as  proposed  in  the  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution? 

10.  Do  you  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to  give 
Police  Courts  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to 
the  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  criminal  causes  wherein 
the  punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison; 
— as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

11.  Do  you  approve  of  providing  that  taxes  assessed  upon 
the  passing  of  property  by  will  or  inheritance  or  in  contem- 
plation of  death  may  be  graded  and  rated  in  accordance  with 
the  amount  of  property  passing,  and  reasonable  exemptions 
made; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

12.  Do  you  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to 
specially  assess,  rate  and  tax  growing  wood  and  tim- 
ber and  money  at  interest,  including  money  in  savings 
banks,  and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on  incomes  from  stock 
of  foreign  corporations  and  foreign  voluntary  associations 
and  money  at  interest,  except  incomes  from  money  deposited 
in  savings  banks  in  this  state  received  by  the  depositors,  and 
to  graduate  such  taxes  according  to  the  amount  of  the  in- 
comes, and  to  grant  reasonable  exemptions,  with  the  pro- 
vision that  if  such  taxes  be  levied  on  incomes  from  stock  and 
money  at  interest  no  other  taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon 
against  the  owner  or  builder  thereof; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

IV.  Resolved:  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  directed  to 
procure  to  be  printed  one  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  copies 


648     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention.      ^ 

of  such  parts  of  the  Constitution  as  are  altered  and  amended 
by  this  Convention,  together  with  the  alterations  and  amend- 
ments, and  the  same  number  of  copies  of  the  questions  to  be 
proposed  to  the  qualified  voters,  and  the  same  number  of 
these  resolutions,  and  to  cause  such  copies  to  be  distributed 
immediately  to  the  town  clerks  of  the  respective  towns,  wards 
and  places  in  the  state,  for  the  use  of  the  qualified  voters  in 
numbers  proportionate  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  numbers  of 
the  legal  voters  in  the  said  respective  towns,  wards  and 
places;  and  it  is  made  the  duty  of  said  clerks  immediately  to 
distribute  such  copies  among  said  voters. 

V.  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  required  to 
print  said  questions  to  be  thus  submitted  upon  the  official 
ballot  for  the  towns  and  cities  for  said  election,  beneath  the 
list  of  candidates,  and  above  the  question  relating  to  licenses 
for  the  sale  of  liquor  where  such  question  is  submitted,  in 
conspicuous  type  in  the  manner  and  form  above  prescribed. 

Upon  the  said  ballots  containing  said  questions  shall  be 
printed  the  word  ^^yes"  at  the  left  hand  with  a  square  near 
it,  and  at  the  right  hand  the  word  "no''  with  a  square  near 
it,  and  the  voter  desiring  to  vote  "yes"  upon  any  one  of  said 
questions  shall  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  word 
"yes,"  and  if  he  desires  to  vote  "no"  he  shall  make  a  cross  in 
the  square  near  the  word  "no,''  and  he  shall  do  this  as  to 
each  question  upon  which  he  desires  to  vote.  All  ballots  cast 
where  no  cross  is  made  in  a  square  beside  any  question  shall 
not  be  counted  as  to  such  question. 

The  Secretary  of  State  shall  cause  to  be  printed  at  the 
bottom  of  each  ballot  distributed  to  the  town  clerks  a  note 
in  plain  and  conspicuous  type  as  follows:  "Every  voter  who 
wishes  to  vote  "yes"  will  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the 
word  "yes";  if  he  wishes  to  vote  "no"  he  will  make  a  cross 
in  the  square  near  the  word  "no."  If  he  make  no  cross  in 
either  square  his  ballot  will  not  be  counted." 

VI.  Resolved:  That  the  town  and  ward  clerks  of  the  sev- 
eral towns  and  wards  in  the  state  shall  make  a  true  and  certi- 
fied copy  of  the  record  of  the  votes  given  in  upon  each  of  the 


I 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  649 

said  questions  and  shall  forward  the  same  in  sealed  packages  to 
the  Secretary  of  State  within  five  days  from  the  day  of  said 
election,  and  said  clerks  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  penalties 
as  are  by  law  prescribed  for  neglect  to  return  the  votes  for 
Governor,  and  the  returns  shall  be  by  the  Secretary  of  State 
seasonably  laid  before  the  Governor  and  Council. 

VII.  Resolved:  That  the  Secretary  of  State  is  hereby  di- 
rected to  furnish  to  the  town  clerks  of  the  different  towns, 
wards  and  places  suitable  blanks  for  the  return  of  the  votes 
on  said  questions. 

VIII.  Resolved:  That  the  Governor  and  Council,  prior  to 
the  first  Tuesday  of  December,  1912,  shall  canvass  said  returns 
and  make  a  record  thereof,  and  the  Governor  shall  forthwith 
issue  his  proclamation  announcing  the  result  of  the  vote  on 
each  of  said  questions  submitted  to  the  people. 

IX.  Resolved:  That  such  of  the  proposed  amendments  as 
shall  be  approved  by  the  requisite  number  of  votes  shall  take 
effect  and  be  in  force  when  their  adoption  is  proclaimed  by 
the  Governor,  provided  that  no  amendment  shall  affect  the 
election  and  membership  of  the  legislature  of  1913. 

X.  Resolved:  That  these  resolutions,  signed  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  this  Convention  and  attested  by  the  Secretary  of 
State,  shall  be  published  once  in  all  the  weekly  newspapers  of 
the  state  authorized  to  publish  public  laws,  and  in  the  daily 
newspapers,  and  that  the  original  journal,  together  with  all 
the  files  of  the  Convention,  shall  be  deposited  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendations 
of  the  CJommittee, — 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord'. — I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  if  there  is  any  objection  on  the  part  of 
the  Committee  to  making  the  last  two  amendments  the  third 
and  fourth,  instead  of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth.  They  relate  *o 
the  taxation  of  inheritances  and  that  large  taxation  measure 
that  we  passed  the  other  day.     They  will  follow  the  questions 


550     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

for  the  increase  of  the  Senate  and  the  reduction  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  moved  to  amend  the  report  so  that 

Question  No.   12  will  be  No.   3;  Question  No.   11,  No.  4; 

Question  No.  3,  No.  12;  and  Question  No.  4,  No.  11. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  proposed 
by  Mr.  Lyford, — 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londmideny . — I  would  say  to  the  gentlemen 
of  the  Convention  that  we  have  no  pride  of  opinion  in  our  re- 
port; that  we  tried  to  be  fair  and  took  them  by  lot,  outside  of 
the  first  two,  the  representation  measures,  which  we  thought 
should  go  together.  The  others  were  drawn  by  lot,  and  have 
been  reported  in  our  report  as  they  were  drawn,  so  we  would 
have  no  opinion  on  the  order  in  which  they  should  appear,  so 
there  is  no  objection  to  it,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — What  is  question  No.  3  now? 

TJw  President. — Question  No.  3  now  is:  Do  you  approve  of  giv- 
ing the  Governor  authority  to  approve  or  disapprove  any  sep- 
arate appropriatnon  contained  in  any  bill  or  resolution;  as  pro- 
posed in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

Mr.  Fellmvs  of  Tilton. — I  favor  Mr.  Lyford's  motion  most  de- 
cidedly, but  in  grouping  these  I  understand  there  are  three 
amendments  on  taxation,  the  inheritance  tax  and  the  Stevens 
amendment,  so  called.  No.  59,  and  then  the  taxation  of  intangi- 
bles.    These  four  should  come  together  somewhere. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Conoordl. — I  accept  that  suggestion. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. — I  believe  these  questions  should  follow 
the  questions  regarding  representation,  because  representation 
and  taxation  were  the  two  leading  matters  that  were  before 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Ooncord. — I  only  thought  of  those  two,  and  I 
forgot  the  other.  We  can  group  all  the  taxation  measures  to- 
gether and  let  them  follow  the  representation  questions. 

The  President. — The  amendment  relating  to  the  taxation  of 
incomes  of  public  service  corporations  is  now  No.  5,  so  that, 
with  No.  12,  No.  3,  and  No.  11,  No.  4,  thej^  will  appear  con- 
secutively. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Con- 
cord was  adopted. 

Question  beino^  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee, as  amended, — 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  551 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord.— ^Ir.  President,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  another  question.  Somewhere  you 
said  that  if  a  voter  did  not  mark  in  the  circle  that  the  ballot 
should  not  be  counted  for  that  amendment.  Is  it  clear  in  your 
minds  that  that  is  what  3"ou  have  accomplished? 

Mr.  PilUMry  of  LondonderTy. — We  went  over  it  very  carefully 
twice,  and  that  was  the  understanding  of  the  Committee,  that 
if  you  do  not  vote  on  any  question  it  will  not  be  counted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  should  like  the  reading  of  that;  I 
should  like  to  make  sure. 

TJw  President. — The  Chair  is  requested  to  read  that  portion 
which  provides  how  the  voting  shall  be  done. 

(Reads  question.) 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — I  observe  in  the  resolution  that  the 
word,  "yes,"  is  upon  the  left  of  the  inquiry,  while  "no"  stands 
upon  the  right.  Is  there  any  reason  wh,y  it  would  not  be 
equally  or  more  intelligent  and  accessible  to  have  both  words 
upon  the  right? 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Lond'onderTy. — I  would  say  for  the  informa-" 
tion  of  the  gentleman  that  we  have  followed  the  precedent  of 
the  previous  Conventions,  and  also  the  license  law,  and  it  ap- 
pears in  the  usual  place.  "Yes"  appears  first  and  "No"  after 
the  question,  and  that  has  been  the  custom  in  the  previous  Con- 
ventions and  in  the  license  question. 

The  President. — The  Chair  would  like  to  ask  a  question  of  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee.  It  refers  to  question  No.  4,  or  11, 
as  reported:  Do  you  approve  of  providing  that  taxes  assessed 
upon  the  passing  of  property  by  will  or  inheritance,  or  in  con- 
templation of  death,  may  be  graded  and  rated  in  accordance 
with  the  amount  of  property  passing,  and  reasonable  exemp- 
tions made;— as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

The  Chair  will  ask  if  in  the  proposed  amendment  there  was 
not  also  rated,  "in  accordance  with  the  amount  of  property  and 
the  relationship  of  the  beneficiary  to  the  deceased,"  and  whether 
it  was  left  out  intentionally  or  whether  it  was  an  oversight,  or 
whether  the  language  of  the  question  covers  both? 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  LondondeiTy. — I  would  say  we  took  the  original 
resolutions  and  the  chairman  of  the  sub-Committee,  Mr.  Wilson, 
very  carefully  put  this  into  shape.  The  entire  Committee  then 
read  the  original  resolution  and  compared  it,  and  adopted  the 
language  that  we  thought  covered  the  subject. 

Tlie  President. — Does  the  chairman  think  that  the  language 
here,  "shall  be  graded  and  rated  in  accordance  with  the  amount 
of   property    passing,    and    reasonable    exemptions    made,"    will 


652     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

cover  also  the  words,    "relationship   of   the    beneficiary    to    the 
deceased,"  as  in  the  original? 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry. — Here  is  the  resolution: 
(Reads  amendment.) 

The  President. — ^And  the  suggestion  of  the  Chair  is  that  this 
says  nothing  about  the  degree  of  relationship.  This  simply 
says,  "in  accordance  with  the  amount  of  property  passing  and 
reasonable  exemptions  may  be  made." 

Mr.  Pillshury  of  Londonderry. — Now,  if  that  is  the  opinion  of 
the  Chair  or  of  the  Convention,  we  would  be  very  glad  to  insert 
it.     We  would  be  very  glad  to  accept  the  suggestion. 

Mr.  Pill&bury  of  Londonderry  moved  to  amend  Question 
No.  4,  by  inserting  after  the  words,  "property  passing/'  in  the 
third  line,  "and  with  the  degree  of  relationship  between  the 
beneficiary  and  the  person  from  whom  it  passes." 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  proposed 
by  Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry, — 

The  President. — I  think  the  word,  "beneficiary,"  would  coven 
the  words,  "donee,  heir-at-law,  or  legatee,"  would  it  not? 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Pillsbury  was 
adopted. 

Mr.  Broderick  of  MancJwste7\—lt  occurs  to  me  to  question  the 
advisability  of  submitting  these  questions  to  the  voters  upon 
a  separate  ballot. 

Tfw  President.— The  Chair  would  state  that  the  statute  requires 
it  to  be  done  on  the  same  ballot. 

Mr.  Pillshury  of  Londonderry.— It  has  been  called  to  my  atten- 
tion that  we  said  that  this  should  be  submitted  attested  by 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  it  has  been  called  to  my  attention 
in  former  Conventions  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention. 

The  President. — (Reads  resolution  relating  to  above.)  Inas- 
much as  the  Secretary  of  State  will  have  to  have  publication 
made,  would  it  not  be  better  to  have  the  Secretary  of  State, 
rather  than  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention? 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Lond)onderry. — I  just  wanted  to  bring  it  be- 
fore the  Convention  and  they  can  take  their  own  action.  It 
is  all  right  as  it  is,  or  it  is  all  right  otherwise. 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  668 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendments  agreed  to  by  Convention,  as  amended, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Mr.  Eowe  of  Kensington  offered  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  finally  adjourn,  today, 
it  adjourn  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  President,  or,  in  case  of 
his  death,  at  the  call  of  the  Governor  of  the  state. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  resolution  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Young  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  the  sincere  thanks  of  the  Convention  are 
hereby  tendered  to  Prof.  James  F.  Colby  for  his  painstaking, 
exhaustive,  and  scholarly  labors  in  the  preparation  of  his  ex- 
cellent manual  of  the  Convention,  which  has  been  so  useful 
and  is  so  highly  appreciated  by  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion. Through  the  use  of  this  serviceable  book,  the  members 
of  the  Convention  have  been  able  to  more  intelligently,  expe- 
ditiously, and  thoroughly  consider  the  various  propositions 
presented  for  action. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord!. — ^Mr.  President,  as  we  approach  the 
end  of  the  work  of  this  Convention,  I  desire  to  offer  a  reso- 
lution, the  object  and  sentiment  of  which,  I  am  confident,  will 
meet  with  ready,  hearty  and  appreciative  response. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  the  members  tender  to  our  Chaplain,  Rev. 
Charles  C.  Garland,  our  sincere  thanks  and  grateful  acknowl- 
edgment for  his  services  as  Chaplain  during  the  session  of  this 
Convention. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  it  is  fitting-  that  we,  the  representatives  of  the 
people  of  this  good  commonwealth,  engaged  as  we  have  been  in 


65i     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

considering-  proposed  amendments  to  its  organic,  fundamental 
law, — a  law  founded  upon  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion. 
and  the  product  of  the  patriotic  labors  of  men  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  representing,  as  we  do,  thi ; 
people,  who,  from  the  foundation  of  our  government  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  have  adhered  strictly  to  the  fundamental  tenets  of  that 
relig"ion  as  the  rule  and  guide  of  their  lives  in  public  and  private 
affairs,  and  acknowledging,  as  we  do,  and  always  must,  our 
gratitude  and  obligation  to  the  Divine  Author  of  that  religion, 
it  is  fitting,  I  say,  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  that  we  should 
here  and  now  publicly  acknowledge  our  gratitude  and  tender 
our  thanks  to  that  worthy  representative  of  this  Christian 
faith  who  has,  at  the  beginning  of  each  day's  labor,  so  piously 
and  sincerely  invoked,  for  our  benefit,  the  blessings  and  as- 
sistance of  Him  on  whom  we  must  rely,  the  source  from  whence 
is  derived  all  strength,  sagacity  and  wisdom,  and,  expressive  of 
this  sentiment,  this  gratitude,  I  offer  this  resolution. 

On  a  rising  vote  the  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Felham. — Mr.  President,  I  have  here  a  resolution 
which  I  think  will  be  seconded  by  every  man  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Hobbs  of  Pelham  offered  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  extended 
to  the  Secretary,  Assistant  Secretary,  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and 
other  officers  and  employees,  for  the  faithful  and  efficient  man- 
ner in  which  they  have  performed  their  various  duties  during 
the  session. 

Mr.  Hohhs  of  Pelham. — Mr.  President,  I  hope  on  this  question 
it  will  be  a  unanimous  vote,  for  I  do  not  desire  to  be  obliged 
to  take  the  count  of  the  division  on  this,  and  I  trust  that  every 
one  will  rise  and  stand  without  being  counted. 

On  a  rising  vote  the  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Shontell  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  and  are 
hereby  extended  to  the  several  representatives  of  the  press 
for  the  able  and  accurate  reports  of  the  daily  proceedings  of 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  555 

the  Convention  and  for  their  courteous  treatment  of  the  mem- 
bers. 

PKEISENTATION  OF  PUNCH  BOWL  TO  PKESIDENT. 

Mr.  Leightan  of  Newflelds. — Mr.  President,  by  one  of  those  pe- 
culiar results  of  the  turn  of  the  wheel  of  chance,  or  possibly 
by  a  process  of  elimination,  or  again,  possibly  by  the  unwise 
judgment  upon  the  part  of  those  who  made  the  choice, — you 
may  describe  it  as  you  will, — I  am  asked  to  encroach  for  just 
a  moment  in  this,  the  closing  hour  of  this  Convention,  and  to 
ask  your  permission  that  the  rank  and  the  file  of  this  Con- 
vention guide  its  affairs.  In  other  words,  Mr.  President,  re- 
membering that  at  certain  times  during  the  past  three  weeks, 
without  fear  or  favor,  you  have  told  the  members  of  this  Con- 
vention your  estimate  of  their  work,  these  same  miembers, 
believing  now  that  a  reversal  of  the  situation  is  only  fair  play, 
ask  the  privilege  of  talking  back  to  you. 

It  does  any  man  good  to  see  himself  as  his  fellows  see  him. 
It  did  us  good  and  worked  for  the  good  of  the  state  to  see  our 
tactics  of  delay  as  you  saw  them.  We  sincerely  hope  it  will 
do  you  as  much  good  to  see  yourself  as  the  members  of  this 
Convention  have   seen   you. 

Honorable  Gentlemen  of  this  Convention,  backed  by  the  vote 
of  its  members,  told  you  yesterday  afternoon,  what  we  think 
of  the  man  who  has  presided  over  its  sessions,  and,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, as  the  successive  days  lengthen  into  years,  we  shall  recall 
with  pleasure  the  associations,  official  and  social,  which  we 
have  enjoyed  here  with  you. 

That  these  words  may  not  seem  empty  of  meaning,  and  that 
the  expression  of  sentiment  may  sparkle  through  a  medium  of 
its  own,  I  beg  to  present  to  you,  in  behalf  of  the  members  of 
this  Convention,  this  slight  token  of  their  respect.  As  it  stands 
in  your  home,  and  as  oft  as  you  look  upon  it,  we  ask  you  to 
remember  that  the  wishes  of  the  givers  are  that  the  days  of 
your  future  success  shall  be  commensurate  with  the  success, 
the  great  success,  which  jou  have  achieved  as  President  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  New  Hampshire  for  the  year  1912. 

TJie  Presi^nt. — Mr.  Leighton,  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
for  once  I  am  speechless.  I  thought  yesterday,  after  the  kind 
words  and  the  vote  of  the  Convention,  that  everything  had  been 
done  that  ought  to  be  done,  and  perhaps  more,  in  regard  to  ex- 
pressing the  opinion  of  the  Convention  towards  its  presiding 
officer.  And  for  this  beautiful  and  substantial  evidence  of  yonr 
appreciation  of  the  work  that  I  have  tried  to  do  here,  all  I  can 


656     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

say  is  that,  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  thank  you  most 
sincerely. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — Mr.  President,  I  felt  at  the  time  that 
perhaps  the  Chair  and  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  did  not 
get  the  point  that  I  made  as  to  the  printing  of  the  ballot.  "Ail 
ballots  cast,  where  no  cross  is  made  in  the  square  opposite  any 
question,  shall  not  be  counted  as  to  such  question."  Then  fol- 
lows the  instruction  to  be  printed  on  the  ballot  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State.  And  those  instructions  read  as  follows:  "Every 
voter  who  wishes  to  vote  'Yes'  will  make  a  cross  in  the  square 
near  the  word,  'Yes';  if  he  wishes  to  vote  'No,'  he  will  make  a 
cross  in  the  square  near  the  word,  'No';  if  he  makes  no  cross 
in  either  square,  his  ballot  will  not  be  counted." 

Now  I  sug-gest  that  the  words  used  in  the  other  paragrapii 
be  added  there, —  "will  not  be  counted  as  to  that  question." 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  moved  that  the  vote  whereby  the 
Convention  adopted  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amend- 
ments agreed  "to  by  the  Convention,  as  amended,  be  recon- 
sidered. 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  affirmative  prevailed. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  recommendations  of 
the  Committee,  as  amended,-^ 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  offered  the  following  amendment: — 

Amend  by  adding  at  the  end  of  Resolution  V  of  the  re- 
port the  words,  "as  to  such  question,"  so  that  the  said  Reso- 
lution V  of  said  report  shall  read  as  follows: 

V.  Resolved:  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  required  to 
print  said  questions  to  be  thus  submitted,  upon  the  official 
ballot  for  the  towns  and  cities  for  said  election,  beneath  the 
list  of  candidates,  and  above  the  question  relating  to  licenses 
for  the  sale  of  liquor  where  such  question  is  submitted,  in 
conspicuous  type  in  the  manner  and  form  above  prescribed. 

Upon  the  said  ballots  containing  said  questions  shall  be 
printed  the  word  "yes"  at  the  left  hand  with  a  square  near  it. 


Saturday,  June  22,  1912.  567 

.and  at  the  right  hand  the  word  "no"  with  a  square  near  it, 
and  the  voter  desiring  to  vote  "yes"  upon  any  one  of  said 
-questions  shall  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  wo-rd  "yes," 
and  if  he  desires  to  vote  "no"  he  shall  make  a  cross  in  the 
square  near  the  word  "no,"  and  he  shall  do  this  as  to  each 
question  upon  which  he  desires  to  vote.  All  ballots  cast 
where  no  cross  is  made  in  a  square  beside  any  question  shall 
not  be  counted  as  to  such  question. 

The  Secretary  of  State  sh^ll  cause  to  be  printed  at  the  bot- 
tom of  each  ballot  distributed  to  the  town  clerks  a  note  in 
plain  and  conspicuous  type  as  follows:  Every  voter  who  wishes 
to  vote  "yes"  will  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  word 
"'^yes";  if  he  wishes  to  vote  "no"  he  will  make  a  cross  in  the 
square  near  the  word  "no."  If  he  make  no  cross  in  either 
square  his  ballot  will  not  be  counted  as  to  such  question. 

Question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Lyford  of 
'Concord, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
jnittee, — 

On  a  viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Shontell  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
.adjourned  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  President,  or  in  case  of 
-his  death  at  the  call  of  the  Governor  of  the  state. 

ALLAN  CHESTER  CLARK, 

Secretary. 
A  true  record. 
Attest: 
Allan  Cheister  Clark, 
Secretary. 


APPENDIX. 


I.  Pamphlet  Issued  by  Secretary  of  State  Edward 
N.  Pearson,  under  Resolution  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

II.  Tabulation  of  Vote  of  the  People  upon  the 
Several  Amendments. 

III.  Proclamation    of    His    Excellency,  Governor 

Robert  P.  Bass. 

IV.  The  Amended  Constitution. 


PAMPHLET    ISSiJED    BY    SECRETAEY    OF    STATE 

EDWARD  N.  PEARSON,  UNDER  RESOLUTION 

OF  THE  CONVENTION. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 

Constitutional  Convention 

OF  1912. 


RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED 


STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 


IN  THE  TEAR  OF  OUR  LORD  ONE  TBOUaAND  NINE  HUNDRED 
AND  TWELYE. 


In  the  Convention  of  delegates  assembled  at  Concord  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  twelve,  for  the  purpose  of  revis- 
ing the  constitution  of  this  state,  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of 
the  legislature  passed  April  15,  1911: 

I.  Resolved:  That  the  alterations  and  amendments  pro- 
posed to  the  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state  at  the  regular  biennial  election  to  be  holden 
on  the  Tuesday  next  following  the  first  Monday  in  November, 
1912,  to  be  by  said  voters  acted  upon  at  said  meetings. 

II.  Resolved:  That  the  selectmen  of  the  several  towns, 
wards  and  places  in  the  state  be  and  are  hereby  directed  to 

561 


562     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

insert  in  their  warrants  calling  the  said  meetings  an  a-rticle 
to  the  following  effect:  To  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified  vot- 
ers w*hether  the  alterations  and  amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion proposed  by  the  Constitutional  Convention  shall  be 
approved. 

'"  III.  Re&olved:  That  the  sense  of. the  qualified  voters  shall 
be  taken  by  hallot  upon  each  of  the  following  questions  sub- 
mitted to  them  by  the  Convention: 

1.  Do  you   approve  of  increasing  the  senate  to  thirty-six 

members,  and  dividing  the  state  into  senatorial  dis- 
tricts on  the  basis  of  population; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

2.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  provision  as  to  represen- 

tation in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  making  600 
inhabitants  necessary  to  the  election  of  one  represen- 
tative and  2,400  inhabitants  necessary  for  two  repre- 
sentatives and  1,800  necessary  for  each  additional 
representative;  with  the  proviso  that  a  town,  ward,  or 
place  having  less  than  600  inhabitants  may  send  a  rep- 
resentative a  proportionate  part  of  the  time;  dr  that 
such  towns,  wards,  and  places  when  contiguous  may 
unite  to  elect  a  representative,  if  each  town  so  decides 
by  major  vote; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution? 

3.  Do  ygu  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to  specially 

assess,  rate  and  tax  growing  wood  and  timber  and 
money  at  interest  including  money  in  savings  banks, 
and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on  incomes  from  stock 
of  fo.reign  corporations  and  foreign  voluntary  associa- 
tions and  money  at  interest,  except  incomes  from 
money  deposited  in  savings  banks  in  this  state  re- 
ceived by  the  depositors,  and  to  graduate  such  taxes 
according  to  the  amount  of  the  incomes,  and  to  grant 
reasonable  exemptions,  with  the  provision  that  if  such 
taxes  be  levied  on  incomes  from  stock  and  money  at 


Appendix.  563 

interest  no  other  taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon  against 
the  owner  or  holder  thereof; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

4.  Do  yon  approve  of  providing  that  taxes  assessed  upon  the 

passing  of  property  by  will  or  inheritance  or  in  con- 
templation of  death  may  be  graded  and  rated  in  accord- 
ance with  the  amount  of  property  passing  and  with  the 
degree  of  relationship  between  the  beneficiary  and  the 
person  from  whom  it  passes,  and  reasonable  exemp- 
tions made; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution? 

5.  Do  you  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to  impose 

a  tax  upon  the  incomes  of  public  service  corporations 
and  voluntary  associations,  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon 
their  property; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution? 

6.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  Bill  of  Rights  by  strik- 

ing out  the  words  "rightly  grounded  on  evangelical 
principles"  after  the  words  "As  morality  and  piety," 
and  striking  out  the  word  "Protestant"  before  the 
words  "teachers  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality"; — as 
proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

7.  Do  you  approve  of  providing  that  no  person  shall  have 

the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  for  office,  who  shall 
have  been  convicted  of  treason,  briber}^,  or  wilful  vio- 
lation of  election  laws,  with  the  right  to  the  Supreme 
Court  to  restore  such  privileges; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

8.  Do  you  approve  of  having  the  governor,  councilors,  and 

senators  elected  by  plurality  instead  of  majority  vote; 
— as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

9.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  Bill  of  Rights  by  striking 

out  the  provision  that  pensions  shall  not  be  granted 


664    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

for  more  than  one  year  at  a  time; — ^as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

10.  Do  you  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to  give 

police  courts  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  criminal 
causes  wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprison- 
ment in  the  state  prison; — as  proposed  in  the  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution? 

11.  Do  you  approve  of  the  requirement  that  the  legislature, 

in  dividing  the  state  into  councilor  districts,  shall  be 
governed  by  the  population; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

12.  Do  you  approve  of  giving  the  Governor  authority  to  ap- 

prove or  disapprove  any  separate  appropriation  con- 
tained in  any  bill  or  resolution; — as  proposed  in  the 
•amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

IV.  Resolved:  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  directed  to 
procure  to  be  printed  one  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  copies 
of  such  parts  of  the  Constitution  as  are  altered  and  amended 
by  this  Convention,  together  with  the  alterations  and  amend- 
ments, and  the  same  number  of  copies  of 'the  questions  to  be 
proposed  to  the  qualified  voters,  and  the  same  number  of  these 
resolutions,  and  to  cause  sudh  copies  to  be  distributed  imme- 
diately to  the  town  clerks  of  the  respective  towns,  wards  and 
places  in  the  state,  for  the  use  of  the  qualified  voters,  in  num- 
bers proportionate  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  numbers  of  the 
legal  voters  in  the  said  respective  towns,  wards  and  places; 
and  it  is  made  the  duty  of  said  clerks  immediately  to  distribute 
such  copies  among  said  voters. 

V.  Resolved:  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  required  to 
print  said  questions  to  be  thus  submitted,  upon  the  official 
ballot  for  the  towns  and  cities  for  said  election,  beneath 
the  list  of  candidates,  and  above  the  question  relating  to 


Appendix.  666 

licenses  for  the  sale  of  liquor  where  such  question  is  sub- 
mitted, in  conspicuous  type  in  the  manner  and  form  above 
prescribed. 

Upon  the  said  ballots  containing  said  questions  shall  be 
printed  the  word  "yes"  at  the  left  hand  with  a  square  near 
it,  and  at  the  right  hand  the  word  "no"  with  a  square  near  it, 
and  the  voter  desiring  to  vote  "yes"  upon  any  one  of  said 
questions  shall  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  word  "yes," 
and  if  he  desires  to  vote  "no"  he  shall  make  a  cross  in  the 
square  near  the  word  "no,"  and  he  shall  do  this  as  to  each 
question  upon  which  he  desires  to  vote.  All  ballots  cast 
where  no  cross  is  made  in  a  square  beside  any  question  shall 
not  be  counted  as  to  such  question. 

The  Secretary  of  State  shall  cause  to  be  printed  at  the  bot- 
tom of  each  ballot  distributed  to  the  town  clerks  a  note  in 
plain  and  conspicuous  type  as  follows:  Every  voter  who  wishes 
to  vote  "yes"  will  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  word 
"yes";  if  he  wishes  to  vote  "no"  he  will  make  a  cross  in  the 
square  near  the  word  "no."  If  he  make  no  cross  in  either 
square  his  ballot  will  not  be  counted  as  to  such  question. 

VI.  Resolved:  That  the  town  and  ward  clerks  of  the  sev- 
eral towns  and  wards  in  the  state  shall  make  a  true  and  certi- 
fied copy  of  the  record  of  the  votes  given  in  upon  each  of  the 
said  questions  and  shall  forward  the  same  in  sealed  packages 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  within  five  days  from  the  day  of  said 
election,  and  said  clerks  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  penalties 
as  are  by  law  prescribed  for  neglect  to  return  the  votes  for 
Governor,  and  the  returns  shall  be  by  the  Secretary  of  State 
seasonably  laid  before  the  Governor  and  Council. 

YII.  Resolved:  That  the  Secretary  of  State  is  hereby  di- 
rected to  furnish  to  the  town  clerks  of  the  different  towns, 
wards  and  places  suitable  blanks  for  the  return  of  the  votes  on 
said  questions. 


666     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

YIII.  Resolved:  That  the  Governor  and  Council,  prior  to 
the  first  Tuesday  of  December,  1912,  shall  canvass  said  returns 
and  make  a  record  thereof,  and  the  Governor  shall  forthwith 
issue  his  proclamation  announcing  the  result  of  the  vote  on 
each  of  said  questions  submitted  to  the  people. 

IX.  Resolved:  That  such  of  the  proposed  amendments  as 
shall  be  approved  by  the  requisite  number  of  votes  shall  take 
effect  and  be  in  force  when  their  adoption  is  proclaimed  by 
the  Governor,  provided  that  no  amendment  shall  affect  the 
election  and  membership  of  the  legislature  of  1913. 

X.  Resolved:  That  these  resolutions,  signed  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  this  Convention  and  attested  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 
shall  be  published  once  in  all  the  weekly  neT>-!5papers  of  the 
state  authorized  to  publish  public  laws,  and  in  the  daily  news- 
papers, and  that  the  original  journal,  together  with  all  the 
files  of  the  Convention,  shall  be  deposited  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State. 

[Adopted  June  22,  1912.] 


ALTERATIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS. 


Amendment  No.   i. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  24  and  25  of  Part  Second  of  thQ  Consti- 
tution be  amended  to  read  as  follows:  Art.  24.  The  senate 
shall  consist  of  thirty-six  members  who  shall  hold  their  office 
for  two  years  from  the  first  Wednesday  of  January  next  en- 
suing*  their    election. 

Art.  25.  And  that  the  state  _may  be  equally  represented  in 
the  senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide  the 
state  into  thirty-six  districts  of  contiguous  territory  as  nearly 
equal  as  may  be  without  dividing-  towns  and  unincorporated 
places,  on  the  basis  of  population  according  to  the  last  census 
of  the  United  States  or  of  this  state. 

Amendment  No.  2. 

Resolved,  That  Articles  9  and  10  of  Part  Second  of  the  Con- 
stitution be  amended  to  read  as  follows:  Art.  9.  There  shall 
be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a  representation  of  the  peo- 
ple biennially  elected,  and  founded  upon  principles  of  equality, 
and  in  order  that  such  representation  may  be  as  equal  as  cir- 
cumstances will  admit,  every  town  or  place  entitled  to  town 
privileg-es,  and  wards  of  cities  having  600  inhabitants  by  the 
last  general  census  of  the  state  taken  by  authority  of  the 
United  States  or  of  this  state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if 
2,400  such  inhabitants  may  elect  two  representatives,  and  so 
proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  1,800  such  inhabitants 
the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional  representa- 
tive; provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the  boundaries 
of  the  wards  of  any  cities  so  altered  as  to  increase  the  number 
of  representatives  to  which  said  town  or  city  may  be  entitled 
by  the  next  preceding  census. 

Art.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place  or  city  ward  shall  have 
less  than  six  himdred  such  inhabitants,  the  general  court  shall 
authorize  such  town,  place  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  to  the 
general  court  a  representative  such  proportionate  part  of  the 
time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six  hundred, 
but  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any  such  town,  place 
'or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such  representative  except  as  herein 
provided;  and  provided  furtJier,  that  the  legislature  may  au- 
thorize contiguous  towns  or  contiguous  towns  and  wards  having 
respectively  less  than  six  hundred  inhabitants,  but  whose  inhabi- 
tants in  the  aggregate  equal  or  exceed  six  hundred,  to  unite  for 
the  purpose  of  electing  a  representative,  if  each  town  so  de- 
cides by  major  vote  at  a  meeting  called  for  the  purpose,  and  the 

667 


568    Journal  of  Constitutional  ('onvention. 

votes  of  towns  thus  united  shall  be  cast,  counted,  returned,  and 
declared  as  the  votes  for  senators  are  cast,  counted,  returned, 
and  declared,  and  the  governor  shall,  fourteen  days  before  the 
first  Wednesday  of  each  biennial  session  of  the  legislature, 
issue  his  summons  to  such  persons  as  appear  to  be  chosen 
representatives  by  a  plurality  of  votes,  to  attend  and  take 
their  seats  on  that  day. 

Amendment  No.  3. 

Resolved,  That  Article  5,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution  be 
amendetj  by  inserting  in  the  twenty-second  line  of  said  Article 
after  the  words  "and  upon  all  the  estates  within  the  same"  the 
following:  but  the  said  general  court  shall  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax  growing  wood 
and  timber  and  money  at  interest  including  money  in  savings 
banks,  and  to  impose  and  levjr  taxes  on  incomes  from  stock 
of  foreign  corporations  and  foreign  voluntary  associations  and 
money  at  interest  except  on  incomes  from  money  deposited  in 
savings  banks  in  this  state  received  by  the  depositors  and  it 
may  graduate  such  taxes  according  to  the  amount  of  the  in- 
comes and  may  grant  reasonable  exemptions;  provided,  that  if 
such  taxes  be  levied  on  incomes  from  stock  and  money  at  inter- 
est no  other  taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon  against  the  owner  or 
holder  thereof, — so  that  the  article  as  amended  shall  read  as 
follows:— Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are 
hereby  given  and  granted  to  the  said  general  court,  from  time 
to  time  to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of  wholesome 
and  reasonable  orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordinances,  directions,  and 
instructions,  either  with  penalties  or  without,  so  as  the  same  be 
not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitution,  as  they  may 
judge  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  this  state  and  for  the  gov- 
erning and  ordering  thereof  and  of  the  subjects  of  the  same, 
for  the  necessary  support  and  defense  of  the  government  there- 
of; and  to  name  and  settle  biennially,  or  provide  by  fixed  laws 
for  the  naming  and  settling  all  civil  officers  within  this  state, 
such  officers  excepted  the  election  and  appointment  of  whom 
are  hereafter  in  this  form  of  government  otherwise  provided 
for;  and  to  set  forth  the  several  duties,  powers,  and  limits  of 
the  several  civil  and  military  officers  of  this  state,  and  the  forms 
of  such  oaths  or  affirmations  as  shall  be  respectively  adminis- 
tered unto  them  for  the  execution  of  their  several  offices  and 
places,  so  as  the  same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this 
Constitution;  and,  also,  to  impose  fines,  mulcts,  imprisonments, 
and  other  punishments;  and  to  impose  and  levy  proportional 
and  reasonable  assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  in- 
habitants of,  and  residents  within,  the  said  state,  and  upon  all 
estates  within  the  same,  but  the  said  general  court  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  specially  assess,  rate  and  tax  grow- 
ing wood  and  timber  and  money  at  interest  including  money 
in  savings  banks,  and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on  incomes  from 
stock  of  foreign  corporations  and  foreign  voluntary  associations 
and  money  at  interest  except  on  incomes  from  money  deposited 
in  savings  banks  in  this  state  received  by  the  depositors  and  it 
may  graduate  such  taxes  according  to  the  amount  of  the  incomes 


Appendix.  569 

and  may  grant  reasonable  exemptions;  provided,  that  if  such 
taxes  be  levied  on  incomes  from  stock  and  money  at  interest 
no  other  taxes  shall  be  levied  thereon  against  the  owner  or 
holder  thereof,  to  be  issued  and  disposed  of  by  warrants,  un- 
der the  hand  of  the  governor  of  this  state  for  the  time  being, 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  for  the  public  ser- 
vice, in  the  necessary  defense  and  support  of  the  government  of 
this  state  and  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  subjects 
thereof,  according  to  such  acts  as  are  or  shall  be  in  force  within 
the  same.  Provided,  that  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize 
any  town  to  loan  or  give  its  money  or  credit,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, for  the  benefit  of  any  corporation  having  for  its  object 
a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in  any  way  aid  the  same  by  taking  its 
stock  or  bonds. 

Amendment  No.  4. 

Resolved,  That  Article  6,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution  o-? 
amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  said  Article  the  following: 
Taxes  assessed  upon  the  passing  of  property  by  will  or  inherit- 
ance or  in  contemplation  of  death  may  be  uniformly  graded 
and  rated  in  accordance  with  the  amount  of  property  passing, 
and  with  the  degree  of  relationship  between  the  donee,  heir- 
at-law  or  legatee  and  the  person  from  whom  it  passes,  and  rea- 
sonable exemptions  may  be  made. 

Amendment  No.  5. 

Amend  Article  6,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution,  by  adding 
at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  and  the  general  court  in  im- 
posing a  tax  upon  public  service  corporations  and  upon  voluntary 
associations  doing  a  public  service  business,  shall  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  of  such  corpo- 
rations and  voluntary  associations  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon 
their  property,  so  that  as  amended  said  section  shall  read  as 
follows:  Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any 
part  thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 
other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
when  passing  by  will  or  inheritance;  and  there  shall  be  a  val- 
uation of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in  every 
five  years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  general  court 
shall  order;  and  the  general  court  in  imposing  a  tax  upon  pub- 
lic service  corporations  and  upon  voluntary  associations  doing 
a  public  service  business,  shall  have  full  power  and  authority 
to  impose  a  tax  upon  the  incomes  of  such  corporations  and  vol- 
untary associations  in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon  their  property. 

Amendment  No.  6. 

Resolved,  That  Article  6  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  striking  out  in  lines  one  and  two  of  the 
first  paragraph  the  words  "rightly  grounded  on  evangelical 
principles,"  and  in  line  thirteen  of  the  same  paragraph  the  word 
"Protestant,"  so  that  as  amended  the  said  article  six  shall  read 
as  follows:  Aut.  6.  As  morality  and  piety  will  give  the  best 
and  greatest  security  to  government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts 


570      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

of  men  the  strongest  obligations  to  due  subjection,  and  as  the 
knowledge  of  these  is  most  likely  to  be  propagated  through  a 
society  by  the  institution  of  the  public  worship  of  the  Deity 
and  of  public  instruction  in  morality  and  religion,  therefore, 
to  promote  these  important  purposes,  the  people  of  this  state 
have  a  right  to  empower,  and  do  hereby  fully  empower,  the 
legislature  to  authorize,  from  time  to  time,  the  several  towns, 
parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  religious  societies  within  this 
state  to  make  adequate  provision,  at  their  own  expense,  for  the 
support  and  maintenance  of  public  teachers  of  piety,  religion, 
and  morality.  Provided,  notwithstanding,  that  the  several 
towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  religious  societies  shall 
at  all  times  have  the  exclusive  right  of  electing  their  own  public 
teachers,  and  of  contracting  with  them  for  their  support  and 
maintenance.  And  no  person  of  any  one  particular  sect  or 
denomination  shall  ever  be  compelled  to  pay  toward  the  support 
of  the  teacher  or  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect,  or  de- 
nomination. And  every  denomination  of  Christians,  demeaning 
themselves  quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall  be 
equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law;  and  no  subordination 
of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  shall  ever  be  estab- 
lished by  law.  And  nothing  herein  shall  be  understood  to  affect 
any  former  contracts  made  for  the  support  of  the  ministry; 
but  all  such  contracts  shall  remain  and  be  in  the  same  state  as 
if  this  Constitution  had  not  been  made^ 

Amendment  No.  7. 

Resolved,  That  Article  11  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be  amended  by 
adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  and  provided  further^ 
that  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to 
office  under  the  Constitution  of  this  state  who  shall  have  been 
convicted  of  treason,  bribery,  or  any  wilful  violation  of  the 
election  laws  of  this  state  or  of  the  United  States;  but  the 
supreme  court  may,  on  notice  to  the  attorney-general,  restore 
the  privileges  of  an  elector  to  any  person  who  may  have  for- 
feited them  by  conviction  of  such  offences,  so  that  Article  11 
shall  read:  Art.  11.  All  elections  ought  to  be  free;  and  every 
inhabitant  of  the  state,  having  the  proper  qualifications,  has 
equal  right  to  elect  and  be  elected  into  office;  but  no  person 
shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the 
Constitution  of  this  state,  who  shall  not  be  able  to  read  the 
Constitution  in  the  English  language  and  to  write,  provided,  how- 
ever, that  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  any  pers^a  prevented 
by  a  physical  disability  from  complying  -vvith  its  requisitions, 
nor  to  any  person  who  now  has  the  right  to  vote,  nor  to  any 
person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or  upwards  on  the  first 
day  of  January,  A.  D.  1904;  and  provided  further,  that  no  person 
shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the 
Constitution  of  this  state  who  shall  have  been  convicted  of  trea- 
son, bribery,  or  any  wilful  violation  of  the  election  laws  of  this 
state  or  of  the  United  States;  but  the  supreme  court  may,  on 
notice  to  the  attorney-general  restore  the  privileges  of  an 
elector  to  any  person  who  may  have  forfeited  them  by  convic- 
tion of  such  offences. 


Appendix.  671 

Amendment  No.  8. 

Resolved,  That  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution  be  amended  as 
follows:  Part  Second,  title  "Senate,"  articles  thirty-two  and 
thirty-three,  article  forty-one,  title  "Executive  Power — Gover- 
nor," and  article  sixty,  title  "Council,"  by  striking  out  the 
word  "majority"  wherever  it  occurs  in  said  article,  and  sub- 
stituting therefor  the  word  plurality. 

Amendment  No.  9.         —  -- 

Resolved,  That  Article  36  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be  amended  by 
■striking  out  the  words  "and  never  for  more  than  one  year  at  a 
time,"  so  that  said  Article  36,  as  amended,  shall  read  as  follows: 
Art.  36.  Economy  being  a  most  essential  virtue  in  all  states, 
especially  in  a  young  one,  no  pension  should  be  granted  but  in 
consideration  of  actual  services;  and  such  pensions  ought  to  be 
granted  with  great  caution  by  the  legislature. 

Amendment  No.  lo. 

Resolved,  That  Article  76,  Part  Two  [Second],  of  the  Constitu- 
tion be  amended  by  the  addition  of  the  following  words:  and 
the  general  court  are  further  empowered  to  give  to  police  courts 
original  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to  right  of 
appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  of  criminal  causes  wherein  the  pun- 
ishment is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison,  so  that 
when  amended  said  section  shall  read:  The  general  court  are 
empowered  to  give  to  justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in  civil 
causes,  when  the  damages  demanded  shall  not  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars,  and  title  of  real  estate  is  not  concerned,  but 
with  the  right  of  appeal  to  either  party  to  some  other  court. 
And  the  general  court  are  further  empowered  to  give  to  police 
courts  original  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to 
right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  all  criminal  causes  wherein 
the  punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison. 

Amendment  No.  ii. 

Resolved,  That  Article  64  of  Part  Second  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "ratable  polls  and  pro- 
portion of  public  taxes,"  and  inserting'  in  place  thereof  the 
word  population,  so  that  Article  64  as  amended  shall  read: 
AuT.  64.  The  legislature  maj^  if  the  public  good  shall  here- 
after require  it,  divide  the  state  into  five  districts,  as  nearly 
equal  as  may  be,  governing  theinselves  by  the  number  of  popu- 
lation, each  district  to  elect  a  councillor;  and,  in  case  of  such 
division,  the  manner  of  the  choice  shall  be  conformable  to  the 
present  mode  of  election  in  counties. 

Amendment  No.  12. 

Amend  Article  44,  Part  Second,  of  the  Constitution  by  adding 
at  the  end  thereof  the  following:  The  governor  may  approve 
or  disapprove  any  separate  appropriation  contained  in  any  bill 
'or  resolution.  Such  portions  as  he  may  approve  shall  thereupon 
become  a  law  and  such  portions  as  he  may  disapprove  shall 
thereupon  be  returned  separately  in  the  manner  provided  in 
the  preceding  section  and  separately  reconsidered  and  if  re- 
passed as  therein  provided  shall  become  a  law. 


PAETS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  ALTEEED 
AND  AMENDED. 


Amendment  No.  i. 


PART  SECOND.  ARTICOLES  24  AND  25. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  24.  The  senate  shall  con- 
sist of  twenty-four  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for 
two  years  from  the  first  Wed- 
nesday of  January  next  ensuing 
their  election. 

Art.  25.  And,  that  the  state 
may  be  equally  represented  in 
the  senate,  the  legislature  shall, 
from  time  to  time,  divide  the 
state  into  twenty-four  districts, 
as  nearly  equal  as  may  be  with- 
out dividing  towns  and  unincor- 
porated places;  and,  in  making 
this  division,  they  shall  govern 
themselves  by  the  proportion  of 
direct  taxes  paid  by  the  said 
districts,  and  timely  make 
known  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
state  the  limits  of  each  district. 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  24.  The  senate  shall  con- 
sist of  thirty-six  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for 
two  years  from  the  first  Wed- 
nesday of  January  next  ensuing 
their  election. 

Art.  25.  And,  that  the  state 
may  be  equally  represented  in 
the  senate,  the  legislature  shall, 
from  time  to  time,  divide  the 
state  into  thirty-six  districts  of 
contiguous  territory  as  nearly 
equal  as  may  be  without  divid- 
ing towns  and  unincorporated 
places,  on  the  basis  of  popula- 
tion according  to  the  last  cen- 
sus of  the  United  States  or  of 
this  state 


Amendment  No.  2. 


PART  SECOND,  'ARTICLES  9  AND  10 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the 
legislature  of  this  state,  a  rep- 
resentation of  the  people,  bien- 
nially elected,  and  founded  upon 
principles  of  equality,  and,  in  or- 
der that  such  representation 
may  be  as  equal  as  circum- 
stances will  admit,  every  town, 
or  place  entitled  to  town  privi- 
leges, and  wards  of  cities  having 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the 
legislature  of  this  state,  a  rep- 
resentation of  the  people  bien- 
nially elected,  and  founded  upon 
principles  of  equality,  and  in  or- 
der that  such  representation 
may  be  as  equal  as  circum- 
stances vsnll  admit,  every  town 
or  place  entitled  to  town  privi- 
leges, and  wards  of  cities  having 


572 


Appendix. 


573 


six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the 
last  general  census  of  the  state, 
taken  by  authority  of  the 
United  States  or  of  this  state, 
may  elect  one  representative;  if 
eighteen  hundred  such  inhabi- 
tants, may  elect  two  represen- 
tatives; and  so  proceeding  in 
that  proportion,  making  twelve 
hundred  such  inhabitants  the 
mean  increasing  number  for 
any  additional  representative: 
provided,  that  no  town  shall  be 
divided  or  the  boundaries  of 
the  wards  of  any  citj'  so  altered 
as  to  increase  the  number  of 
representatives  to  which  such 
town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by 
the  next  preceding  census;  and 
provided,  furtJier,  that,  to  those 
towns  and  cities  which  since  the 
last  census  have  been  divided  or 
had  their  boundaries  or  ward 
lines  changed,  the  general 
court,  in  session  next  before 
these  amendments  shall  take 
effect,  shall  equitably  apportion 
representation  in  such  manner 
that  the  number  shall  not  be 
greater  than  it  would  have  been 
had  no  such  division  or  altera- 
tion been  made. 

Art.  10.  Whenever  any  town, 
place  or  city  ward  shall  have 
less  than  six  hundred  such  in- 
habitants, the  general  court 
shall  authorize  such  town, 
place  or  ward  to  elect  and  send 
to  the  general  court  a  represen- 
tative such  proportionate  part 
of  the  time  as  the  numoer  of 
its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six 
hundred,  but  the  general  court 
shall  not  authorize  any  such 
town,  place  or  ward  to  elect  and 
send  such  representative  except 
as  herein   provided. 


six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the 
last  general  census  of  the  state 
taken  by  authority  of  the  United 
States  or  of  this  state,  may  elect 
one  representative;  if  2,400  such 
inhabitants  may  elect  two  rep- 
resentatives, and  so  proceeding 
in  that  proportion,  making 
eighteen  hundred  such  inhabi- 
tants the  mean  increasing  num- 
ber for  any  additional  represen- 
tative: provided,  that  no  town 
shall  be  divided  or  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  wards  of  any  cities 
so  altered  as  to  increase  the 
number  of  representatives  to 
which  said  town  or  city  may  be 
entitled  by  the  next  preceding 
census. 

AnT.  10.  Whenever  any  town, 
place  or  city  ward  shall  have 
less  than  six  hundred  such  in- 
habitants, the  general  court 
shall  authorize  such  town, 
place  or  ward  to  elect  and  send 
to  the  general  court  a  represen- 
tative such  proportionate  part 
of  the  time  as  the  number  of 
its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six 
hundred,  but  the  general  court 
shall  not  authorize  any  such 
town,  place  or  ward  to  elect 
and  send  such  representative 
except  as  herein  provided;  and 
provided  further,  that  the  leg- 
islature may  authorize  contigu- 
ous towns  or  contiguous  towns 
and  wards  having  respectively 
less  than  six  hundred  inhabit- 
ants, but  whose  inhabitants  in 
the  aggregate  equal  or  exceed 
six  hundred,  to  unite  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  a  represen- 
tative, if  each  town  so  decides 
by  major  vote  at  a  meeting 
called  for  the  purpose,  and  the 
votes  of  towns  thus  united  shall 
be  cast,  counted,  returned,  and 
declared  as  the  votes  for  sena- 
tors are  cast,  counted,  returned, 
and  declared,  and  the  governor 
shall,  fourteen  days  before  the 
first  Wednesday  of  each  bien- 
nial  session   of    the   legislature. 


574       Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

issue  his  summons  to  such  per- 
sons as  appear  to  be  chosen  rep- 
y  resentatives    by    a    plurality    of 

votes,  to  attend  and  take  their 
seats  on  that  day. 


Amendment  No.  3. 


PART  SECOND,  AETICLE  5. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full 
power  and  authority  are  hereby 
given  and  granted  to  the  said 
general  court,  from  time  to 
time  to  make,  ordain,  and  estab- 
lish all  manner  of  wholesome 
and  reasonable  orders,  laws, 
statutes,  ordinances,  directions, 
and  instructions,  either  with 
penalties  or  without,  so  as  the 
same  be  not  repug'nant  or  con- 
trary to  this  Constitution,  as 
they  may  judge  for  the  benefit 
and  welfare  of  this  state  and 
for  the  governing  and  ordering 
thereof  and  of  the  subjects  of 
the  same,  for  the  necessary 
support  and  defense  of  the  gov- 
ernment thereof;  and  to  name 
and  settle  biennially,  or  provide 
by  fixed  laws  for  the  naming* 
and  settling-  all  civil  officers 
within  this  state,  such  officers 
excepted  the  election  and  ap- 
pointment of  whom  are  here- 
after in  this  form  of  govern- 
ment 'otherwise  provided  for; 
and  to  set  forth  the  several  du- 
ties, powers,  and  limits  of  the 
several  civil  and  military  offi- 
cers of  this  state,  and  the  forms 
of  such  oaths  or  affirmations  as 
shall  be  respectively  adminis- 
tered unto  them  for  the  execu- 
tion of  their  several  offices  and 
places,  so  as  the  same  be  not 
repugnant  or  contrary  to  this 
Constitution;  and,  also,  to  im- 
pose fines,  mulcts,  imprison- 
ments, and  other  punishments; 
.and  to  impose  and  levy  propor- 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full 
power  and  authority  are  hereby 
given  and  granted  to  the  said 
g-eneral  court,  from  time  to 
time  to  make,  ordain,  and  estab- 
lish all  manner  of  wholesome 
and  reasonable  orders,  laws, 
statutes,  ordinances,  directions, 
and  instructions,  either  with 
penalties  or  without,  so  as  the 
same  be  not  repug-nant  or  con- 
trary to  this  Constitution,  as 
they  may  judge  for  the  benefit 
and  welfare  of  this  state  and 
for  the  governing  and  ordering- 
thereof  and  of  the  subjects  of 
the  same,  for  the  necessary 
support  and  defense  of  the  gov- 
ernment thereof;  and  to  name 
and  settle  biennially,  or  provide 
by  fixed  laws  for  the  naming 
and  settling  all  civil  officers 
within  this  state,  such  officers 
excepted  the  election  and  ap- 
pointment of  whom  are  here- 
after in  this  form  of  govern- 
ment 'otherwise  provided  for; 
and  to  set  forth  the  several  du- 
ties, powers,  and  limits  of  the 
several  civil  and  military  offi- 
cers of  this  state,  and  the  forms 
of  such  oaths  or  affirmations  as 
shall  be  respectively  adminis- 
tered unto  them  for  the  execu- 
tion of  their  several  offices  and 
places,  so  as  the  same  be  not 
repugnant  or  contrary  to  this 
Constitution;  and,  also,  to  im- 
pose fines,  mulcts,  imprison- 
ments, and  other  punishments; 
and  to  impose  and  levy  propor- 


Appendix. 


575 


tional  and  reasonable  assess- 
ments, rates,  and  taxes  upon 
all  the  inhabitants  of,  and  resi- 
dents within,  the  said  state,  and 
upon  all  estates  within  the 
same,  to  be  issued  and  disposed 
of  by  warrant,  under  the  hand 
of  the  g-overnor  of  this  state 
for  the  time  being,  with  the  ad- 
vice and  consent  of  the  council, 
for  the  public  service,  in  the 
necessary  defense  and  support 
of  the  government  of  this  state 
and  the  protection  and  preser- 
vation of  the  subjects  thereof, 
according  to  such  acts  as  are 
or  shall  be  in  force  within  the 
same.  Provided,  that  the  gen- 
eral court  shall  not  authorize 
any  town  to  loan  or  give  its 
money  or  credit,  directly  or  in- 
directly, for  the  benefit  of  any 
corporation  having  for  its  ob- 
ject a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in 
any  way  aid  the  same  by  taking 
its  stock  or  bonds.     . 


tional  and  reasonable  assess- 
ments, rates,  and  taxes  upon 
all  the  inhabitants  of,  and  resi- 
dents within,  the  said  state,  and 
upon  all  estates  within  the 
same,  but  the  said  general  court 
shall  have  full  power  and  au- 
thority to  specially  assess,  rate 
and  tax  growing  wood  and  tim- 
ber and  money  at  interest  in- 
cluding money  in  savings  banks, 
and  to  impose  and  levy  taxes  on 
incomes  from  stock  of  foreign 
corporations  and  foreign  vol- 
untary associations  and  money 
at  interest  except  on  incomes 
from  money  deposited  in  sav- 
ings banks  in  this  state  re- 
ceived by  the  depositors  and  it 
may  graduate  such  taxes  ac- 
cording to  the  amount  of  the 
incomes  and  may  grant  reason- 
able exemptions;  provided,  that 
if  such  taxes  be  levied  on  in- 
comes from  stock  and  money  at 
interest  no  other  taxes  shall  be 
levied  thereon  against  the 
owner  or  holder  thereof,  to*  be 
issued  and  disposed  of  by  war- 
rants, under  the  hand  of  the 
governor  of  this  state  for  the 
time  being,  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  council,  for  the 
public  service,  in  the  necessary 
defense  and  support  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  this  state  and  the 
protection  and  preservation  of 
the  subjects  thereof,  according 
to  such  acts  as  are  or  shall  be 
in  force  within  the  same.  Pro- 
vided, that  the  general  court 
shall  not  authorize  any  town  to 
loan  or  give  its  money  or  cred- 
it, directly  or  indirectly,  for  the 
benefit  of  any  corporation  hav- 
ing for  its  object  a  dividend  of 
profits,  or  in  any  way  aid  the 
same  by  taking  its  stock  or 
bonds. 


676      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention, 


Amendment  No.  4. 


PART  SECOND.  ARTICLE  6. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  ().  The  public  charges  of 
government  or  any  part  thereof 
may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon 
polls,  estates,  and  other  classes 
of  property,  including  fran- 
chises and  property  when  pass- 
ing by  will  or  inheritance;  and 
there  shall  be  a  valuation  of 
the  estates  within  the  state 
taken  anew  once  in  every  five 
years,  at  least,  and  as  much 
oftener  as  the  general  court 
shall  order 


Provision   if   Amended. 

Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of 
government  or  any  part  thereof 
may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon 
polls,  estates,  and  other  classes 
of  property,  including  fran- 
chises and  property  when  pass- 
ing bj'  will  or  inheritance;  and 
there  shall  be  a  valuation  of 
the  estates  within  the  state 
taken  anew  once  in  every  five 
years,  at  least,  and  as  much 
oftener  as  the  general  court 
shall  order.  Taxes  assessed  up- 
on the  passing  of  property  by 
will  or  inheritance  or  in  con- 
templation of  death  may  be 
uniformly  graded  and  rated  in 
accordance  with  the  amount  of 
property  passing,  and  with  the 
degree  of  relationship  between 
the  donee,  heir-at-law  or  lega- 
tee and  the  person  from  whom 
it  passes,  and  reasonable  ex- 
emptions may  be  made.   . 


Amendment  No.  5. 


PART  SECOND.  ARTICLE  6. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of 
government  or  any  part  thereof 
may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon 
l)olls,  estates,  and  other  classes 
of  property,  including  fran- 
chises and  property  when  pass- 
ing by  will  OT  inheritance;  and 
there  shall  be  a  valuation  of 
the  estates  within  the  state 
taken  anew  once  in  every  five 
years,  at  least,  and  as  much 
oftener  as  the  general  court 
shall  order. 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of 
government  or  any  part  thereof 
may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon 
polls,  estates,  and  other  classes 
of  property,  including  fran- 
chises and  property  when  pass- 
ing by  ^vill  or  inheritance;  and 
there  shall  be  a  valuation  of 
the  estates  within  the  state 
taken  anew  once  in  every  five 
years,  at  least,  and  as  much 
oftener  as  the  general  court 
shall  order;  and  the  general 
court  in  imposing  a  tax  upon 
public  service  corporations  and 
upon  voluntary  associations  do- 
ing   a    public    service    business, 


Appendix. 


577 


Amendment  No.  6. 


shall  have  full  power  and  au- 
thority to  impose  a  tax  upon 
the  incomes  of  such  corpora- 
tions and  voluntary  associations 
in  lieu  of  a  direct  tax  upon 
their  property. 


BILL  OF  RIGHTS,  ARTICLE  6. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Aet,  6.  As  morality  and  pie- 
ty, rightfully  grounded  on  evan- 
gelical principles,  will  give  the 
best  and  greatest  security  to 
government,  and  will  lay  in  the 
hearts  of  men  the  strongest  ob- 
ligations to  due  subjection,  and 
as  the  knowledge  of  these  is 
most  likely  to  be  propagated 
through  a  society  by  the  institu- 
tion of  the  public  worship  of  the 
Deity  and  of  public  instruction 
in  morality  and  religion,  there- 
fore, to  promote  these  impor- 
tant purposes,  the  people  of 
this  state  have  a  right  to  em- 
power, and  do  hereby  fully  em- 
power, the  legislature  to  au- 
thorize, from  time  to  time,  the 
several  towns,  parishes,  bodies 
corporate,  or  religious  societies 
within  this  state  to  make  ade- 
quate provision,  at  their  own 
expense,  for  the  support  and 
maintenanceiof  public  Protestant 
teachers  of  piety,  religion,  and 
morality.  Provided,  notmtlistand- 
ing,  that  the  several  towns, 
parishes,  bodies  corporate  or 
religious  societies  shall  at  all 
times  have  the  exclusive  right 
of  electing  .  their  own  public 
teachers,  and  of  contracting 
with  them  for  their  support  and 
maintenance.  And  no  person 
of  any  one  particular  religious 
sect  or  denomination  shall  ever 
be  compelled  to  pay  towards  the 
support  of  the  teacher  or  teach- 
ers of  another  persuasion,  sect 
or  denomination.  And  every 
denomination  of  Christians,  de- 
meaning themselves  quietly  and 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  6.  As  morality  and  pie- 
ty will  give  the  best  and  great- 
est security  to  government, 
and  will  lay  in  the  hearts  of 
men  the  strongest  obligations 
to  due  subjection,  and  as  the 
knowledge  of  these  is  most 
likely  to  be  propagated  through 
a  society  by  the  institution 
of  the  public  worship  of  the 
Deity  and  of  public  instruction 
in  morality  and  religion,  there- 
fore, to  promote  these  impor- 
tant purposes,  the  people  of 
this  state  have  a  right  to  em- 
power, and  do  hereby  fully  em- 
power, the  legislature  to  au- 
thorize, from  time  to  time,  the 
several  towns,  parishes,  bodies 
corporate,  or  religious  societies 
within  this  state  to  make  ade- 
quate provision,  at  their  own 
expense,  for  the  support  and 
maintenance  of  public  teach- 
ers of  piety,  religion  and  mo- 
rality. Provided,  notmthstand- 
ing,  that  the  several  towns, 
parishes,  bodies  corporate  or 
religious  societies  shall  at  all 
times  have  the  exclusive  right 
of  electing  their  own  public 
teachers,  and  of  contracting 
with  them  for  their  support  and 
maintenance.  And  no  person 
of  any  one  particular  religious 
sect  or  denomination  shall  ever 
be  compelled  to  pay  towards  the 
support  of  the  teacher  or  teach- 
ers of  another  persuasion,  sect, 
or  denomination.  And  every 
denomination  of  Christians,  de- 
meaning themselves  quietly  and 
as   good    subjects    of   the   state. 


678 


Journal  of  Constitutional  (convention. 


as  good  subjects  of  the  state, 
shall  be  equally  under  the 
protection  of  the  law;  and  no 
subordination  of  any  one  sect 
or  denomination  to  another 
shall  ever  be  established  by 
law.  And  nothing  herein  shall 
be  understood  to  affect  any  for- 
mer contracts  made  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  ministry;  but  all 
such  contracts  shall  remain  and 
be  in  the  same  state  as  if  this 
Constitution  had  not  been 
made. 


shall  be  equally  under  the 
protection  of  the  law;  and  no 
subordination  of  any  one  sect 
or  denomination  to  another 
shall  ever  be  established  by 
law.  And  nothing  herein  shall 
be  understood  to  affect  any  for- 
mer contracts  made  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  ministry;  but  all 
such  contracts  shall  remain  and 
be  in  the  same  state  as  if  this 
Constitution  had  not  been 
made. 


Amendment  No.  7. 

BILL  OF  RIOHTS,  ARTICLE  11. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  11.  All  elections  ought 
to  be  free;  and  every  inhabit- 
ant of  the  state,  having  the 
proper  qualifications,  has  equal 
right  to  elect  and  be  elected 
into  office;  but  no  person  shall 
have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eli- 
gible to  office  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  this  state,  who  shall 
not  be  able  to  read  the  Consti- 
tution in  the  English  language, 
and  to  write,  provided,  however, 
that  this  provision  shall  not  ap- 
ply to  any  person  prevented  by 
a  physical  disability  from  com- 
plying with  its  requisitions,  nor 
to  any  person  who  now  has 
the  right  to  vote,  nor  to  any 
person  who  shall  be  sixty  years 
of  age  or  upwards  on  the  first 
day  of  Januar3%  A.  D.   1904. 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  11.  All  elections  ought 
to  be  free;  and  every  inhabit- 
ant of  the  state,  having  the 
proper  qualifications,  has  equal 
right  to  elect  and  be  elected 
into  office;  but  no  person  shall 
have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eli- 
gible to  office  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  this  state,  who  shall 
not  be  able  to  read  the  Consti- 
tution in  the  English  language, 
and  to  write,  provided,  noicever, 
that  this  provision  shall  not  ap- 
ply to  any  person  prevented  by 
a  physical  disability  from  com- 
plying with  its  requisitions,  nor 
to  any  person  who  now  has 
the  right  to  vote,  nor  to  any 
person  who  shall  be  sixty  3'ears 
of  age  or  upwards  on  the  first 
day  of  January,  A.  D.  1904;  and 
provided  further,  that  no  person 
shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or 
be  eligible  to  office  under  the 
Constitution  of  this  state  who 
shall  have  been  convicted  of 
treason,  bribery,  or  any  wilful 
violation  of  the  election  laws  of 
this  state  or  of  the  United 
States;  but  the  Supreme  Court 
may,  on  notice  to  the  attorney- 
general  restore  the  privileges 
of  an  elector  "to  any  person  who 
may  have  forfeited  them  by 
conviction   of  such  offences. 


Appendix. 


579 


Amendment  No.  8. 


PAPtT  SECOND,  ARTICLES  32,  33,  41,  60. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  82.  And,  that  there  may 
be  a  due  meeting  of  senators  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  Janu- 
ary, biennially,  the  governor 
and  a  majority  of  the  council 
for  the  time  being  shall,  as  soon 
as  may  be,  examine  the  re- 
turned copies  of  such  records, 
and,  fourteen  days  before  the 
first  Wednesday  of  January,  he 
shall  issue  his  summons  to  sucn 
persons  as  appear  to  be  chosen 
senators  by  a  majority  of  votes 
to  attend  and  take  their  seats 
on  that  day:  provided,  neverthe- 
less, that,  for  the  first  year,  the 
said  returned  copies  shall  be 
examined  by  the  president  and 
a  majority  of  the  council  then 
in  office;  and  the  said  president 
shall,  in  like  manner,  notify  the 
persons  elected  to  attend  and 
take  their  seats  accordingly. 

Art.  33.  And  in  case  there 
shall  not  appear  to  be  a  senator 
elected  by  a  majority  of  votes 
for  any  district,  the  deficiency 
shall  be  supplied  in  the  follow- 
ing manner,  viz.:  the  members 
of  the  house  of  representatives 
and  such  senators  as  shall  be 
declared  elected  shall  take  the 
names  of  the  two  persons  hav- 
ing the  highest  number  of  votes 
in  the  district,  and  out  of  them 
shall  elect,  by  joint  ballot,  the 
senator  wanted  for  such  •  dis- 
trict; and,  in  this  manner,  all 
such  vacancies  shall  be  filled  up 
in  every  district  of  the  state; 
all  vacancies  in  the  senate  aris- 
ing by  death,  removal  out  of 
the  state,  or  otherwise,  except 
from  failure  to  elect,  shall  be 
filled  by  a  new  election  by  the 
people  of  the  district,  upon  the 
requisition   of  the  governor,  as 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  32.  And,  that  there  may 
be  a  due  meeting  of  senators  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  Janu- 
ary, biennially,  the  governor 
and  a  majority  of  the  council 
for  the  time  being  shall,  as  soon 
as  may  be,  examine  the  re- 
turned copies  of  such  records, 
and,  fourteen  days  before  the 
first  Wednesday  of  January,  he 
shall  issue  his  summons  to  such 
persons  as  appear  to  be  chosen 
senators  by  a  plurality  of  votes 
to  attend  and  take  their  seats 
on  that  day:  promded,  neverthe- 
less, that,  for  the  first  year,  tne 
"said  returned  copies  shall  be 
examined  by  the  president  and 
a  majority  of  the  council  then 
in  office;  and  the  said  president 
shall,  in  like  manner,  notify  the 
persons  elected  to  attend  and 
take  their  seats  accordingly. 

Art.  33.  And  in  case  there 
shall  not  appear  to  be  a  senator 
elected  by  a  plurality  of  votes 
for  any  district,  the  deficiency 
shall  be  supplied  in  the  follow- 
ing manner,  viz.:  the  members 
of  the  house  of  representatives 
and  such  senators  as  shall  be 
declared  elected  shall  take  the 
names  of  the  two  persons  hav- 
ing the  highest  number  of  votes 
in  the  district,  and  out  of  them 
shall  elect,  by  joint  ballot,  the 
senator  wanted  for  such  dis- 
trict; and,  in  this  manner,  all 
such  vacancies  shall  be  filled  up 
in  every  district  of  the  state; 
all  vacancies  in  the  senate  aris- 
ing by  death,  removal  out  of 
the  state,  or  otherwise,  except 
from  failure  to  elect,  shall  be 
filled  by  a  new  election  by  the 
people  of  the  district,  upon  the 
requisition   of  the  governor,  as 


680 


Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


soon  as  may  be  after  such  va- 
cancies shall  happen. 

Art.  41.  The  governor  shall 
be  chosen  biennially,  in  the 
month  of  November,  and  the 
votes  for  governor  shall  be  re- 
ceived, sorted,  counted,  certi- 
fied, and  returned  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  votes  for  sena- 
tors; and  the  secretary  shall 
lay  the  same  before  the  senate 
and  house  of  representatives  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  January, 
to  be  by  them  examined;  and, 
in  case  of  an  election  by  a  ma- 
jority of  votes  through  the 
state,  the  choice  shall  be  by 
them  declared  and  published; 
and  the  qualifications  of  elec- 
tors of  the  governor  shall  be 
the  same  as  those  for  senators; 
and,  if  no  person  snail  have  a 
majority  of  votes,  the  senate 
and  house  of  representatives 
shall,  by  a  joint  ballot,  elect  one 
of  the  two  persons  having  the 
highest  number  of  votes,  who 
shall  be  declared  governor. 
And  no  person  shall  be  eligible 
to  this  office  unless,  at  the  time 
of  his  election,  he  shall  have 
been  an  inhabitant  of  this  state 
for  seven  years  next  preceding, 
and  unless  he  shall  be  of  the 
age  of  thirty  years. 

Art.  60.  And  the  person  hav- 
ing a  majority  of  votes  in  any 
county  shall  be  considered  as 
duly  elected  a  councilor;  but,  if 
no  person  shall  have  a  majority 
of  votes  in  any  county,  the  sen- 
ate and  house  of  representa- 
tives shall  take  the  names  of 
the  two  persons  who  have  the 
highest  number  of  votes  in  each 
county  and  not  elected,  and  out 
of  those  two  shall  elect,  by 
joint  ballot,  the  councilor 
wanted  for  the  county;  and  the 
qualifications  for  councilors 
shall  be  fhe  same  as  for  sena- 
tor 


soon  as  may  be  after  such  va- 
cancies shall  happen. 

Art.  41.  The  governor  shall 
be  chosen  biennially,  in  the 
month  of  November,  and  the 
votes  for  governor  shall  be  re- 
ceived, sorted,  counted,  certi- 
fied, and  returned  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  votes  for  sena- 
tors; and  the  secretary  shall 
lay  the  same  before  the  senate 
and  house  of  representatives  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  January, 
to  be  by  them  examined;  and, 
in  case  of  an  election  by  a  plu- 
rality of  votes  through  the 
state,  the  choice  shall  be  by 
them  declared  and  published; 
and  the  qualifications  of  elec- 
tors of  the  governor  shall  be 
the  same  as  those  for  senators; 
and,  if  no  person  shall  have  a 
plurality  of  votes,  the  senate 
and  house  of  representatives 
shall,  by  a  joint  ballot,  elect  one 
of  the  two  persons  having  the 
highest  number  of  votes,  who 
shall  be  declared  governor. 
And  no  person  shall  be  eligible 
to  this  office  unless,  at  the  time 
of  his  election,  he  shall  have 
been  an  inhabitant  of  this  state 
for  seven  years  next  preceding, 
and  unless  he  shall  be  of  the 
age  of  thirty  years. 

Art.  60.  And  the  person  hav- 
ing a  plurality  of  votes  in  any 
county  shall  be  considered  as 
duly  elected  a  councilor;  but,  if 
no  person  shall  have  a  plurality 
of  votes  in  any  county,  the  sen- 
ate and  house  of  representa- 
tives shall  take  the  names  of 
the  two  persons  who  have  the 
highest  number  of  votes  in  each 
county  and  not  elected,  and  out 
of  those  two  shall  elect,  by 
joint  ballot,  the  councilor 
wanted  for  the  county;  and  the 
qualifications  for  councilors 
shall  be  the  same  as  for  sena- 
tor 


Appendix. 


581 


Amendment  No.  g. 

BILL  OF  RIGHTS,  ARTICLE  36. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  36.  Economy  being  a 
most  essential  virtue  in  all 
Btates,  especially  in  a  young 
one,  no  pension  s  hould  be 
granted  but  in  consideration  of 
actual  services;  and  such  pen- 
sions ought  to  be  granted  with 
great  caution  by  the  legisla- 
ture, and  never  for  more  than 
one  year  at  a  time. 

Amendment  No.   lo. 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  36.  Economy  being  a 
most  essential  virtue  in  all 
^tates,  especially  in  a  young 
one,  no  pension  s  hould  be 
granted  but  in  consideration  of 
actual  services;  and  such  pen- 
sions ought  to  be  granted  w^ith 
great  caution  by  the  legisla- 
ture. 


PART  SECOND,  ARTICLE  76. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  76.  The  general  court 
are  empow^ered  to  give  to  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in 
civil  causes,  when  the  damages 
demanded  shall  not  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars  and  title  of  real 
estate  is  not  concerned,  but  with 
right  of  appeal  to  either  party 
to   some   other  court. 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  76. '  The  general  court 
^re  empowered  to  give  to  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in 
civil  causes,  when  the  damages 
demanded  shall  not  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars  and  title  of  real 
estate  is  not  concerned,  but  with 
the  right  of  appeal  to  either 
party  to  some  other  court.  And 
the  general  court  are  further 
empowered  to  give  to  police 
courts  original  jurisdiction  to 
try  and  determine,  subject  lo 
right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury, 
all  criminal  causes  wherein  the 
punishment  is  less  than  im- 
prisonment in  the  state  prison. 


Amendment  No.  ii. 


PART  SECOND, 

Present  Provision  of  Constitution, 

ARIT.  64.  The  legislature  may, 
if  the  public  good  shall  here- 
after require  it,  divide  the  state 
into  five  districts,  as  nearly 
equal  as  may  be,  governing 
themselves  by  the  number  of 
ratable  polls  and  proportion  of 


ARTICLE  64. 

Provision  if  Amended. 

Aict.  64.  The  legislature  may, 
if  the  public  good  shall  here- 
after require  it,  divide  the  state 
into  five  districts,  as  nearly 
equal  as  may  be,  governing 
themselves  by  the  number  of 
population,      each      district     to 


682      JouiLNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 


public  taxes,  each  district  to 
elect  a  councilor;  and,  in  case 
of  such  division,  the  manner  of 
the  choice  shall  be  conformable 
to  the  present  mode  of  election 
in  counties. 


elect  a  councilor;  and,  in  case 
of  such  division,  the  manner  of 
the  choice  shall  be  conformable 
to  the  present  mode  of  election 
in  counties. 


Amendment  No.  12. 


PAKT  SECOND.  AT?TTCLE  44. 


Present  Provision  of  Constitution. 

Art.  44.  Every  resolve  shall 
be  presented  to  the  g-overnor, 
and,  before  the  same  shall  take 
effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him, 
or,  being  disapproved  by  him, 
shall  be  repassed  by  the  senate 
:ind  house  of  representatives, 
according"  to  the  rules  and  limi- 
lations  prescribed  in  the  case  of 
a    bill. 


Provision  if  Amended. 

Art.  44.  Every  resolve  shall 
be  presented  to  the  g-overnor, 
and,  before  the  same  shall  take 
effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him, 
or,  being  disapproved  by  him, 
shall  be  repassed  by  the  senate 
and  house  of  representatives, 
according  to  the  rules  and  limi- 
tations prescribed  in  the  case  of 
a  bill.  The  governor  may  ap- 
prove or  disapprove  any  sepa- 
rate appropriation  contained  in 
any  bill  or  resolution.  Such 
portions  as  he  may  approve 
shall  thereupon  become  a  law 
and  such  portions  as  he  may  dis- 
approve shall  thereupon  be  re- 
turned separately  in  the  man- 
ner provided  in  the  preceding 
section  and  separately  reconsid- 
ered and  if  repassed  as  therein 
provided  shall  become   a  law. 


II. 

TABULATION  OF  VOTE  OF  THE  PEOPLE  UPON  THE 
SEVERAL  AMENDMENTS. 


584     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


I  iH  C<l        Irt  rH  evj  LO  iH  M  1-1  M        tH  M -^        CO        O  tH  rH  i-l  rH        O  Tfi  M  • 


*SSgS"'S?:S?§S;3;^^S*^Sg?3'«^l8^S^*i8S§2S?5 


e^iMi-i-*-«m-»t<iH^(M<x>rHe;icoco«>THC>»e«9<Deoeoi-iooe«3C<ie<5?Jcooc5t-i«o 


O>;J<(MT»<<»Tj<(Mt-.r-IOS00(3j<2. 


t-r-IOSOO(3jC>t-N«DOO«e00000500«OOOt-OOC<)lOlOOCOl 

00  th  eo  t»  tH  t-i  OS!  e<i  Csi  l5  ifii  co  t-i  cvi  tH  c<>  eo  t- <m  < 


tHtH  th  eo-^  • 


rHOO'^o»t-cooeot-t-e<se<ieD'S<t-'^o>e9caNou30»eQTHOTHe<iost--^eo 

r-l  IM  rH  ■<«<  eo   CO  iH  iH  CO  OXM  ,-1  CO  M  tHi-I  e<!5  lO  tH  rH   Tt<  lO  (M  r»<  rH  lO  CO  iH  Cfl  CO 


-*«o«oe<j<»cqos(MMioioooeDeo«>t-o»use<9t-ooi-it-e<i^«oopNoo©«ct- 
c<]eo<Mcc>kaoou3<oc<i0)ooeoeo'^ooeoTHioi:-c4coe^rH^'^eQ«oc4eotQea«o 


t-cqiflt-t--t--^ooojooiaTt<o-^c5ooooOi-ib-ort<t-i-i'^ip«oe^ooe<so-«*< 
i-<e<5M-*eoeoioc^iT-(t-THeoT»<-^»<ooc>5YH'«*<t»5<«^i-it-u5M^*c<ieocor-i«o 


§3^aS5§SS|53^|S*S5JS5S^5^SS^i§2S^?383S|^^ 


iPseoMeo      00 'S' M  eo  eo  N  o  t- esj  < 


<j<leQ 


Appendix, 


585 


CO         iH  rH  r-i 


S^Sg5SI5IS?3g3 


C-C5  W  t-t- rH  t-3  "5         O 

!^  lA  <?5  M<  T-l  eOrH       i-H 


;iJ5^^S13l 


leq  ■^      tHiH  i-(c<i 


^  S  !§  U9  CO  ca  T-5 -"f  M 


I  ifl  w  iH  tH  cq  eo 


^gsssss^s 


«S  _  rt         W 


686    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention 


W  »0  tH  tH         CO  •><»<  1-1  cm         cm  CO  00  Ca  C>5 


ooQece>3Tt<90t-'*«et-io50i-ii-it-ooo'^^»<eoe<iooT-<t-ooo5iHe<5r-t«DOj 
rHe5r-i-<«''!»<eceqosrMri<ONeoc^u5,-iiHeoioc^eo,Ht-coT-icMTHcjoir5oJo 


r^r-li-leo^       MIOiHC«3tH        tH  tH  rH  Ui  tH  •  CO  e<S  iH  eO        tH  iH  Its  i-(  T-c 


r-1  C<l  tH  ■T*<  55  eO  eO  rH  r-l  «0  O  Cvl  Tf  CO  «>  1-1  CM  CO  iO  CM  CO         t- ■*  rH  CM  CM  CM  O  1-1  T-l  «e 

c<i  cq  ,_( c^i  1-1 


CMiHcqB      N  t- iH  00 1- iH      CMe>5  c5ini-(  r»<  eo      cm      eMeooi-i« 


iiH'>*<3T«<c4oi-iioojT-ieoec«Or-iiHeoirtMcoT-it--«»<CMc<5CMNa>THiH< 

^  CM  iH  C<llH 


T-l  CJ  iH  Tj«  CO         CO  ^j  rH  eO  0»  CM  ^  CM  CO  iH         CM«OrHlH         Tf  lO  rH  CO         CO  U3  CO         •^ 


"=?S$3??SSSSS5S?35:S3S3g^'^S3§5^S^«'Ss3SSi5?3S^§g 


c<iooOT»<«ofc:a<'<j<i-!«ooqt--»¥Ot-ooeooooo«ei«»<t-ego»u3eMTHNe3oo 


SS5^SS^^|^S|§3^i§SS^?§?S^<^feS^SSS3S||l 


'?idSS?3'^^SSSS?iS?5'*SS'*Sag9S«g§5;^S*gi5SSI5a 


»0«e?-l<— )t~eorHcOOiHCOU5lrtO«000-*>«OU5rHO>u50C30rH'<*il«lO?OOrH 

e1cvic<)Sifi'*iou5c^«eMSeM'^»i3«oi-icM-^ioeocoTHOioco-^eMc5i-i«o«oo 

CM  CM  rH  rH  CM  rH 


<!<JCQO 


'  a  >»     cJ  S  2  fl  a  ft  a-';!  w  £  g  tS  5  9  2 


eiJ  o 


rHCMCO  •* 


a  :5 

sa 


stj:n  wi2 


o  o 


J5CU0H 


Appendix. 


587 


O'J'tradt-e^ooooo 


°^i^?5^'*'SlS;:JS 


T(<  •>*  CO  lO  M  1 


O  to  CO  OS  >o  00  O  1 


lOOlOOStOlOiHOt- 


588     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


(MOOi-HOSeOCOO-TCMt-lMOOt-O 

r-it- 

=■ 

■^ 

T  O 

>J-. 

ocinc^i 

1  '» 

o 

Mosoooooo      eooMM       -^r-iuseCTreoiMtc-^coeo.-i           ca 

1    CO 

6 

;^ 

1  ^ 

'A 

3^f£§^SS55SS"=S?S??§8S;2:?^gS^Sg5?3^S 

rH 

m 

CM 

(U 

r-ti-t>HiH                                                                      rl                T-H                       CM 

00 

>^ 

gS3S88^§3?2?5g5"^«>SSg§?3g^§5SSg5S'«g 

o 

•«»< 

z 

00 

0 

■<*< 

03 

Sp!§s3SS'*S^?SS«g5J^S5!S^§S^^aS?SS 

rH        T-l               tH                                                                       tH 

•^ 

>^ 

'* 

1 

SJ2gS:S8*^?5S3^^^St3§3^g;^^S^^5:;i5^^S 

i 

1 

03 

0) 

gSSS^^?gSSS^SSJ2:ji^^^^S^^t5S§53S 

kO 

14 

tH               iH                                                                       r-l 

>H 

'^ 

_ 

J0C<lt-00T-IC^OJlO00T(<-<»<rHeC>OJlO-Tttt-OJ«SOl<Mt">»<-«»<TjtC0 

« 

O 

t-e<S00O5rH        iHOOrHlO      •  ■»««  tH  iH  OJ  Tf  (M  iH  CO  CO  <N  tH  ,H  <M        CO 

CO 

z 

rn               rH                                                                                                                                        1 

2- 

6 

2; 

1 

[ 

S 

ssg^^«?2g^'«s§s^S3SS5§^?:^;2;?:?:??s  I 

»* 

^ 

o- 

t-\ 

r-l                     T-l        i-H 
OrH«DaiT»<OSO«DOOlOTl 

i-H 

«. 

<eo 

Ift-^Ci- 

M000O0000O>i-IU3000O 

c>» 

o 

■««<  t- ""(iio  C-        C<lt-        >H        (M  iH  rH  N -TO  e<l  r-l  <M  CO  1-1  tH  c<li-l  T-H  eo 

00 

N 

^ 

t- 

1" 

OB 

Sg2|§-§2g§g5°°{3§^Ei5!S^||SgS^SS 

^ 

^ 

rH 

tH 

O 

15 

SSSSg'*'Sgi3^'^g?3^^!$^S:3j;iSS;S?3g'*^ 

1 

1 

1 

Sg2|S|;:iS|»SSSSSS5:Sg?Sgt§S?3}gS5S 

3 

>■ 

E- 

Z 

J3 

c 

r-l  M  CO  •«*<  U5 

p 

rH  n"  CO  ■<»<  l«  ;o 

I'S^'SS 

•^ 

e^ 

cc 

ut 

•S'S'S'S'H'H 

cB  cS  ed  ee  oj  CO 

rt  OS  cd  c«  CO 

-co-o-o-o 

a^^^^^^ 

1 

rt  5  S  cd  5  S 

Q 

«  1                  «r 

t 

rringtoi 

ver— W 
W 
W 
W 
W 

rham   . 

rmingtc 

F»      

so  c 
«S5 

w  Durl 
Chester- 

llinsfori 
nerswoi 

■afford 

2 

<tf  o                 s  nj  (L  "!  —  —  iJ  o                     o  ;;                 ."-: 

PQ 

O 

C 

b 

<-J 

S 

s 

,»' 

Z 

QJ 

ci 

'^ 

W 

Appendix. 


589 


o 

^Sg^?: 

1-1 

^ 

gg;:! 

UJ 

?5 

t- 

s^ 

^sss^ 

s 

T^ 

s 

1-h"^ 

§5 

i 

eq 

^ 

d 

m 

0) 

>H 

T-T 

^ 

o 

^!5^5JS  :;5S^S*^S'«i5S§?S'^^S?3'"SS^?5 

i 

d 

s 

55S^SS;^S§S^^di:?£!E:^S^gS5!Sj;5^iS?s 

00 

e<5 

iHiHT-<r-l               tH                                              ^ 

lO 

>^ 

rH 

~ 

g^^^g^SS^^^S:^^SS:3^^SSgSSSS"=S 

(M 

o 

t— 

d 

_ 

^ 

«D 

^ 

SgSS;S?3^|^S3^!5i?Sg^§??gS^5J53^l3a 

\s> 

s 

t- 



>^ 

T-T 

1 

o 

S?:s?:S'^SS^55«g'^^S5SS5igg5?5?5S5:;'^S 

t-J 

1 

^ 

1 

?^?3^S?SS553S^?;?^^gS^?3S?^gS?353Si£ 

s 

T-1,-1              iH 

^sss?2^?^S'«s*^S'^gg5:^?;^§3Sigs"=«s 

00 

o 

?3 

00 

^ 

• 

d 

" 

05 

-sS^S^^5^^^^-^^^""l^^^^3"^ 

CO 

« 

o 

ggS^lS  :SSSS«S5^gg^5J;5«'^g?3?3SS**§: 

§ 

1 

. 

^ 

'^ 

s 

^SSII^"^^^*'^^^^^^^!^^^^^^^ 

o 

<M 

t- 

>H 

H 

z; 

T-!  M  M  •<*<  us 

? 

i-i  C<i  CO  -<P  U5  «3 

^  t-  fc,  t- 1-. 

^ 

(N 

■«t 

\c. 

•S'S'S'S'S'S 

oi  cd  cii  OS  OS  OS 

«J  oJ  CO  cd  cij 

-o-a-o-o-o 

a^^^^^^ 

X] 

^4 

d  S  cd  cd  oi  03 

1 

be 
a 

s 

u  a. 

o 

oJO                     3cSajW.-~<Do                          ot;                      '-' 

cr 

c 

c 

& 

*J 

:§ 

s 

^ 

^ 

tf 

Q:J 

M 

M 

1 

590     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


I 

I 
« 

H 

H 

D 

CO' 

o 

H 
c» 

o 


sj^i 


I  C- Tt<  t- -^  Cvl(M  U9 


eoiOT*<oooojoO'>i»'i 


( to  ■<»<  T»t  eo  ■«*<  lo  to 

«  t- OD  00  «0  CO  •>»<  CO 


(M -Tji  M  CO  N  N  rH  T«<  rH  Tl* -"l*  t- U5  c!5  <M  •*  \^ 


>(M  o  eg  I 


iequ50«oojeoc<ie^'*oeoeoc<9U5oo 


<MT»<cvi(MMeoi-i«ie>9t-io 


eoeoc<9U5< 
ooeowwi 


'«OOOl-IC5i-IOJWt-lH0005IMlfl-«»t,H 

ic-oje<9«5cDUSo-<»io}«oost-'«<«otc 


uST-(oJo»THU3«o«)eoi-HC<iTt<ooooaso 
loceioeoce-^eoooioot-c^weoooto 


'-.^■B 


_•   CO    —    (U   >-■   CO   M 


tH  cvi  CO  Tf  lo  eo 

"O  'O'O'O  "CO 
^  (,  ^  ^  L.  »4 
qj  aJ  rt  eS  OS  ^efl 


S^^  o  d      o 


Appendix. 


691 


C0C<l 

_l 

_l 

Oi  M  to  00  t- 05 

,_! 

in 

t- 

,_( 

00  e^ 

1  ^ 

o 

r-(r-IM<M         M  tH  CO  l-t  IM  eC  «J  M  CM  TH  Tt- 

hs 

e^ 

J5 

1 

1 

5§s§8S^^^ss3§§;g?:?ig^ 

tH 

o 

S^«§3S§^§S?SSS^^§§S?5 

^ 

T-l 

Z 

CO 

tH 

o 

^ 

§gS^J35^|^|53S:SS?5| 

1 

a) 

tH 

. 

»H 

o 

?S?:?Si^S^3P;aS?S:jS§5l2^^ 

s 

o 

Z 

1 

d 

- 

1 

;z; 

^Sg§3S5$^|SgSSl2^§^ 

(^ 

ro 

OJ 

>^ 

'~' 

d 

2: 

^ 

^^S5S3S§^S^S5§2^§3?Sg 

s 

1 

• 

a; 

gS^g*SS^gj:5^S5S^SS 

fg 

i-H                                           rH 

>H 

o 

§35?S§3?5^^5g^5S§^§3l§ 

1 

00 

d 

Z 

U3 

^ 

0/ 

eo-<»<coas?oeow*e<i<M«oajiMeoot- 

rH 

iat-00r-lc0'»<ONTt<j^t'rHI:-CClfl^ 

^. 

>< 

iH 

d 

«^S2S^S^«?3g?g?g3?S^J^ 

§ 

iz; 

■^ 

s 

^. 

L_ 

>' 

>H 

1h 

2^ 

3 

O 

y 

< 

»-i  CO  eo  ■*  U5  CO 

fe 

•O'O'O'd'O'O 

ca 

2 

^ 

ed  nS  cS  as  oi  oj 

o    ■ 

tii 

„^^^^^^ 

oa 

* 

J 
^ 

^^K 

li         5il 

7i 

CQ 

o      1 

z 

1    < 

^ 

e 

c 
C 

1 

a 

a 

C 
ci 

c 

E- 

592     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention 


I 

i 

o 

I 

p 
w 

H 

H 

W 
D 
m 

m 

O 

I— I 
H 

D 
O" 

5^ 
O 

H 
O 


r-(         lH«0         iHt-         r^r^         «5  tH  CO  «0 -^  (M     I    t- 


iOO«OOOOOr-IOTHt"< 


I 


I  O 


\-^t~iaeo-^iat~iOiat-e<iiae^t~t- 


13S:i'^S^SIg??S5^^5 


I  iH  lO        «< 


eo  rH  iH  eo  cJI  eo  T*! 


<!  P3  33  o  O  W  K  fc< 


c4 

SO  '.  ■  o  :  _,c3  j:_,  o 
ejS'-'cOo^,.HJ:;xi«o 

CO       JSOcooOoSteEctC-^ 

5  5*2  rt  o 


o^cg^^-g-as 


;  S  O  w  H  H  P^  ?^ 


Appendix. 


593 


ieoiH-«j<ooocoeoMo5irt'^oic 


I  N     I    t- 

I,-!       t- 


ooooeoa>oioeoMTHOoooooJ05t-o> 


Cg|.rH00  00O«0.t:j«^; 


T-H         rH  lO         T-(  IM  iH  1-1  CM         ■i-li-le<I( 


eoiou5co«ast-t-T-ioo«poooo'*'ajOrHoo 


CO  tH  r-( -*  <M  !it<  M        eoeOT-tOOco^tOt'^ 


594     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


■i-tT-i^T-teoMweoeoe^ooocsii-HrHcoNCOiHcgiat-eor-tcq'VMrHSiH' 


>  05  M  N  «D  T-l  t-  < 


c<i  N  c<i  e<i , 


r3oOost-e<3**C9»-<oocoo*3ooooo<*»-it-e<nee«900oooooot-*oo 


lr-<toCg-^l<rt<t-«5iratCt~(MTt«Oloe<JeoeOT}-t-Oi^(X>r-l-*NrHiHT»<t-00 


ooect-Tfiiflcaqseoejosr-iiHCxsi-^iHioeocoeocooiooooMeoT-Hust-oot- 


"jeooooeoOi-ioo-^itLOoooMOo^-ir-itDt-oeoioM-^oii-iooiMinus 
co<MojTfit-«ooococ<ioooooot-c<joe9-»««'*»<oooc^ioeoT»<t--vojTj<ini-<r-( 

tH  r-l  CO  e5  (M  SM  rH  l-H  tH  rH  iH  ,-1  ,-!,-, 


«>:2922S:E:2!:3riS:£22«> 


^ss^53Sf3Ssssssss;§ssg?§pi53^^5^ss^!§ 


■q<  M  T-l  N  eo  oq  oi  eo  00  •>!»<  t«  tH  M  U5  00  »-i  00  e<5  oj  w  o  «>  O       _     _ 

ooeoo3eot-'*iooN<Mt^oo'^«Oi-i-^TH-<}<irt«oooiHNi-iecioc<i 

i-H  iH  (M  <M  Cq  M         tH  ,-1  ■ 


t-  O  OS  Tt"  O  t~  «o 


t_ooo«)Cso-veoe<5i«tDt~^ev5«nc<io>ooe<iT-c^Mece<ie^iooeo«escco 


eooojOeor-oo«Dr-(tc>°oo>ooMOOinio«o«cooc«?Dt'-r^00op5t-h-i 
eoooT-iu5cou5ioeo«oto5»— Hoi'^iHcoe^>nooTHi-(ioi-H'^eoe<i<Faiooc< 

rH  CM  ^  C^  1-t         "-•  rH  tH  >H 


i-4e4e<3^tatot>ooo» 


^  ,Q  00*0 
W  i  ^  .  O  t-  Q>  b 
12  "^  ai  »-i  Qj  ra  O 
g  O  O  fe-O  "«« 

^-o  M  g  cu  a-2  a 
-.  a  o  o  t,  ojx3  o 


a 

a  On  S 


'O'O'O 

U    ^   (h 


a2 


W  ^  ^  ,Q   ■— 

0/  .^  o  o  Q  a>  <u 


"•^  s 


Appendix. 


596 


§S5^SSS 

S 

N 

§;5SS^S 

!5 

CO 

g^og^S 

§ss;?2^g5 

eo 

S;^gpi?3S 

1 

^'"^J^SS? 

eo 

^S^5!?S^ 

gssi^s? 

1 

eo 

S;:^^S55J5 

eo 

O 

e<r 

|?5^g?i;5 

1 

1  ^ 

Pittsfleld  

Salisbury    

Sutton    

Warner    

Webster  

Wilmot  

tt 

696     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


I   r-t  M  eo  iH  eo  ca -i*  CO  CO  Si  OS  t- -*  iH  ,-1 -^ff  c*  Jsi  th  M  eo  »o  "«i<   eo  Ss  w  ?3  S  §  eS 


eoo»<Meoirtw>wt-c<ieoiot-tcioo'>*iiH«eor-(t-oo«D«c>05ooooo>^iO'^ 
wect-N-^eoCvit-Mt-oocooiasi-MT-iNoocot-cfleot-r-ieoTHir-irHwSSS 


(•»i<iHe^«©eor-ioO(M<:»e<i'<t<MT-iu5coirtoo'^0-^ev505iHr-ieot-iHONio 
)Ooool^^lOeoc<^t-ecWr^lQ(^ooTH<^3e<5eoooo5NlClt-(^^us(^^r^w•^l<^>^- 

iH       COC^C^C^ItHt— (  tHt— (         tH 


I  <M  OO  U5  OS  O  iH  eO  rH  tH    CvJ  CO  Irt  <M    N  CC  i?  c5  Jh  t-5  S 


lOSCOSMrHOOC^COCOOlC^COOOlOO-^OgsepOOt-OOOSTHt^teifSeO 

.t-eo-^e<5Nt-Tt<t-ooM>'«*<o<=>eoMe»5eoooOMt-i-(Ttii-ieac<ieS«Db- 


rHoot-ose<>i(;»rtc<icocou5eDU5(Min«)Oi-ie<i-»tiiojpeooosi-iosooe<)«eos 
THt-•<«<lH■^»^l^5■<«<•<«^<Meo^o■Tt^■«l^c<^■«^<c<^e»scqeou5t-u^,^e<^l01Hc^JMS5S 


«DC»eorHT»<e«siH«>Oeooic5ooeoooooo5o5»oosooos«ee<»Tj<'.*<ei«Diooso> 

C^"<*<05lHOOC<lC<10SUSOOU3T-(THb-lHOC<IC<liHOOOS«C<eT-3eOOSi-lT-lc4SS 


tH  (M  CO  c^  eo  th  ■*  eo  N  CO  tH  00  S  eg  tH  eo  iH  rH  rH  CO  eo  <c  m   eg  eo  n  cq  n  m  5 


iOO>eo«»ST-ioO'^t-'«*<i-ioso5THT-t-^t-eoe<>e<9t-in<5ooost-t~itsoe<5iH( 

1-1  M  M  M  M  rH  iH  iH  1-1  i— I  y-{ 


Oi-t-^T-<oseOT»<t-t-oo5t-ajoooseo«OT»<t-oo«oo"'ose<joi«DmT-i-«ft- 
•<«it-oocou3-^e<ioo'^c«cooQOtc>u3eo-«f'i}<eoo5M'«o05wt-<MMeoino:.  cs 

tH  COCQCOC^t-H  rHrH  tH 


a 
o  t-  S! 

M)    >^    1^ 


i-IC<le<2'«<lO«Ot-00l7S 


o  ^H  Q)  5- 


::5  a  o  o  t,  cs^  o 


POHfc 


cd  cts  eS 


-5    •>?§ 

g  a  fl  a  J 
a-  o  ft^  ^  ^ 

a> «  o  o  %  0)  a) 


52 
o  g 


Appendix. 


597 


I  ,-1  O  «0  00  00 


lO  00  IM  00  lO       t- 


^"^§513 


|SS5SSS     S 


O5T-(e000(M(M 


5:ss53*;2: 


COt-ICOO  IMCO         JO 


Sid  3>5  cuS 


598    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


CO 

d 
55 

O 

W                                                                                                                                   iH  Tt<  <M  <M  lO  ■«»«         MCJ-^                tH         iH 

to 
6 

Yes 

S§8SS5?"«?3SS^^g^gi:^^§S||||gg||Sg|?S| 

d 
Z 

o 
Z 

CSICOtH         t-I         tHMt-I 

■ 

1 

5g2^;2;^^SSSS§|^St5^||||||5g||§g|SS 

d 

1 

S^tg^S'^f:3|S?^§gS^S!gggg|||?g|||§5ISg^S 

i 

o 

z. 

§^§§5:;^SS§iSSSS5?2SSS«5:5S|§||g^|||SSS^^ 

S|p!§g;:3?§|S^Sgig?2S?5^S||gSS|ggg^^|gg 

1 

o 

z 

iH                       1-H                                    eo  ■^  1-H         1-1         1-1  M  rH                iH 

I 

th                                      »-i  1*  e^  ec  eo  eo      •^  eo  co           eo      y-^ 

^ 

Amherst   

Antrim  

Bedford    

Bennington   

Brookline   

Deering   

Francestown  

Goffstown  

Greenfield    

Greenville    

Hancock    

Hillsborough    

Hollis   

Hudson    

Litchfield   

Lyndeborough   

Manchester— Ward    1 

Ward    2 

Ward    3 

Ward    4 

Ward    5 

Ward    6 

Ward    7 

Ward    8 

Ward    9 

Ward  10 

Mason   

MerrTllTack  

Milford  

Mont  Vernon   

Nashua— Ward  1 

Appendix. 


699 


SSS^55S^aS§S2  :SSS" 

§ 
" 

?:iS!§^gS|5;^g5^|'^;3J§§^ 

O«ogu5oog300;2;oojo^oogg^ 

M 

gg!§5Sg|gS^!S|"Sg^^ 

■xt< 

in 

SS3^§3^S^§?^S^  :'«??S'* 

(M 

|55S^S||§?SS5^2^Sg2|-^ 

'if'" 

§55:iS*S3S?2^g2j;5i:?S^«'SS^ 

co" 

S---||-^-|^^^S  :    1 

SSS^§3^g§§gi5SS-^«'§§^-^ 

1 

|S^^5^|S5!;^s?|^ss||'*' 

^S?S^g?2^?^g^^§SS^^5S"* 

CO 

|g5^S|g|SS§5g^g^Sg  : 

$3 

lo" 

Ward  2 

Ward  3 

Ward  4 

Ward  5 

Ward  6 

Ward  7 

Ward  8 

Ward  9 

New  Boston   

New  Ipswich   

Pelham    

Peterborough  

Sharon   

Temple  

Weare  

Wilton    

Windsor    

c 
E- 

600    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


tDt-«OeoeousooeoeoOTHr-ieooo'-'ooooo«iT-i<MM<T»<«>iOT-ieO'<«>oeoeoeM 

T»<00'<»<c5'#THiH<MC<leO'*l-(lO-»t"-leoe^OLOi-IOOOOt-COCD-^THT(<TPi-lt-0 
iH  rH  rHlOi-lTflMCvieOrHM  C?l  t-I 


53sa;g'««*;^ 


«0  CO  OS  Tt*  00  t- < 


ioo«o      T-ieo      <mtH 


it-'OiOTfWc^joo-^nrteot-oc^t-t-toioeaoj 

, -)Oi-lt-W<»00,      — ' 

I  CO  CO      Tf  M  ei 


(•<«<«C>rHcO«>COOMOi 


ll^OQr-lTjttOTHOSO 


rH^COM  iH  t-         rH-^«CiHeSI         i-l  U3  OS  OJ  i-H  t- 00  CO  ^  iS  O         IM  Tf         -^ti  CO 


»=, 


cou3t-eoot-05Ntv3Tt<Oe»5>fteooooeoos05<ieo<Nr-io«ocooo"5T-it- 

US5o-<t<THN<Mr-leO(MOOinSrHcOeO»HS5<M«55o<£>OOTt<lOrH-<t<tDIMt-0 


lfie<IC<10000000l^eOlOCvl0522«CT-IOOT-l»-ICsIOO-Tt<C5THt-Tj<OOt-000» 


IMNOOOOOOOI^ 
iTfCO         r-(t-40Ji-((M 


IU5T-i         tH 


oo»©iHeot-05e<ieo'Tt<oooooj05t-CQCoo»HeDoO'^ot-Oieot-coTH;^rj«oO 
M«5eoMeo      tH  2b  r-n-i  <m  t- Jq  eo  tH  w  <o -*  lo  <=>  eo  «d  oo  «o  eo  oo  i-i  eo  U5  th  us  o» 

lH  I— 1  tHCOtHttCO'^COCOCO  i-HrH 


c<i'^eoe<3  iHt-      THeot-Neo      ih  ift  os  eo  c5  •^  oo  co  eo  K  **      r-iojrHt-eo 


.eoeoeoc^50t-«o■«*<«5«cr^|^3'*'^leo^st-•-«*<ool2^-,--lr:iS'e5S:^iri2°S 
ie>6Keo-^MM"*MioeoO<»t-rHeotAeo<Nit--<»'Ot-Jn»«ciocq«cioMt-rj 


;553SS5'-S^?2"»?3?S5§3i8'^?3gggS&Sg«SgS'*SS''SS§ 


•Tt<Mo»OopNOio«o«e-^wwo50^iAt-weofOr-<t«OT-(Oeooj;*Tf<«£ 

SoS-*US>HeOt--(NTl4lf5eqU500rH^-*j-<r-!,H05»20055Ne2M«C>ge<ljO:;2 
tH  tH  r-t  r-(  «0  tH  ec  T-I  CO        .^  CO  eo  C^        M  t-i 


d 
So 


fcS 


i-lcieo'^io 


t-00O>Q 


o  <u 

<5<jeQpqpQPfeOOOffiffiffiff  J)JS 


ts'O'cJ'O'O'O'O'O'O'O 

;edcdc4e4odc4cdc4c(]c4 


«5      ►^ 


5-2^:. 


Appendix. 


601 


§5g^S^SS5S?3^  :^s55g^ 

S 

3 

g^^pilllgss^g^ssi-^ 

1 

03  Tj.  t- C<J  O  t- «0  00  eo  03  ■*      -COMIO,-! 

CO 

JS^^gggg^^J^I-^S^i^^ 

i- 

^S^g55SI5S^^S^-??§-^ 

S5!5:{§gsgs^ss?^2^^^ 

1 

US 

sa«'ss^ss?^s?2-*«^^^ 

ss5:^Hg^?3^|^g|g^ 

id 

SS3«'53^2$:;SS?3?S^-g3§S'^ 

^sss^igi^^jg^g-^s^l^ 

id 

Ward  3 

Ward  4 

Ward  5 

Ward  6 

Ward  7 

Ward  8 

Ward  9 

New  Boston  

New  Ipswich   

Pelham    

Peterborough  

Sharon   

Temple  

Weare 

Wilton    

Windsor    

602     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


iHff<ieoeoc<ie<iust-t 


icaeoa)tHooiAO>eot>t> 


I  OJ  eO  M  1-H  o  to  o 
lO  CO  CI  t-l  lO 


C»  N  rH  iH  tH  iH '^  Csl  eo  eo  CO  lO  eO  lO  iH  Cd        -^  <-(  M  T-1  esi 


«  «s  N  e<i  ^  •^  O  o>  M  «>  o  t— 00  eo  00  oj  M    •  ■^  os  tH  O  t- t- o>  e<i 

i-li-l  tH 


o5  5S  tH  iH  i-t  r-i  eo  N  ■«*< -^  e<s  ■*  <M 'a*  (M  i-i -f  i-i  ■*  S  w 


I  eo         1-i  rH         (£>lO( 


SS  C^  W  «<J  Tf<  eO  lO  rt  us  lO  lO  in  (M  <X>  i-l  ^  rH  iH        r-l  m< 


O5i-lTHeO00< 


•^  •*  N  lO      cq  00  o -^  Oi  OS  00  o  irt  ^3       i-t  Tti       »-i 


f»(M        rH  tH  rH  CO  *«  eo  •<l<  CO  00  e<5  eO  rH  »H  rH        CO        CO  ^  J* 


CO'^'^>OCOC<|OOOS^OSO>OOOOseoMrHT*<        rHe»5r^0it-O'^00 


■  eqkOMCDOOOrHOcOtOt-OOCO^OieOAC^COlArHtCcOUSOO 
I  ■«««  rH  CM  rH  rH  U3  T»<  ?0  lis  lO  lO  CO  S  rH  r^         rH  4^1  rH  «D  CvJ  5S  CO  B 


0>  lo  0»  0»  O  rH  CO  e<l  rH  rH  rH  t— O  OO  rH  ■^ -^  CO      •  rH  ■^  0>  lO  O  C>3 '^  ^ 
(M  C<l  CO  •«<  CO  C<l  S  OS  eg  00  S  S  «  ^  CO  N  rH  5?      .  rH  S         iS«CO<MS 


rHPJ  CO  T»<  ITS 
'O  "O  'O  T3  TS 


^^^^^§ 


o 


rtos'^oMoO'ss^  t: 


Appendix. 


608 


gc  •«»' <35  T-j  cs  2  00  M  «  3;  o;  iH  OS  t- o>  lo  ■*  t- 00  t- o  1X1  ;d  ec -^  «o  «?       «£> 


OOOOOOe^l«ir5lf5«C>Nt»C<lt-OOt^OT»'T»<TH<000'^OTt<C<lt-'^ 

eo  CO  eo  ■*  CO  rH  f  00  1-1  00  00  00  t- 1- iH  T-i  r-i  eo     rH  S  «D  ^  00  eq  S 


Ol  C<I  P5  •*  fiv)  IM  t- 00  iM  00  O  t- OS  "5  r-l  rH  i-H  eO  i-i         t- -^  05  (M  <» 


M  r-l         1-1  CM  IM  ■*  CO  IM  eO  ?3  "^  tH  r-l         IM  rH  C<l  i-l  CO 


I 


I  00-»ti00^CTSC0O0005-*<3V(Ml0O00'Ni-IO«<lT-l00O00050)- 


S^^I^'OMeoe^ooeoooioOTHOSifli-it-oooot-iflcocouSTjt 

CO  tH  tH  iH  rS  r-(  •^  CO  «0  "5  •V««<  T)<  ■.,»<  iH  i-4        tH  Cq         CO  rH  eo  CJ  CO 


lMMMC0c<|r-l00«>O'Xit0t^t»-^iHTH        C^  incOt-C<liP 


«gc3co'*;t-'^u50©ipe»5coOJ>nt-«>T»<oot-<ei-i«c«oiHoO' 

CO  rH  iH  r-l  ^  ^  j^  eO  10  ■^  f  10  e^  •^  e<l         COlHU»M( 


22  ri  t:  3  "5  "=>  "5  <=>  "^  3?  «^  t~ 'i? '^  "^  "5  «>  M  fi^"^ '*' e^  «>  «"-<  o  o     b- 

C<I  •*  eo  i-t  (M  eq  t»  00  M  t~  OJ  t- OJ  U3  <M  rH  tH  iH  t-i  1-1  Ir- Tj<  O  M  00        CO 


iM«Dasc»t-oo«eo5oo( 


ICO         1-t  1-1  ^  00  «0  O  CO  05 


r-ioicOT*<m 

TS  TJ  'O  'O  TS  _- 
t-  I-  t,  W,  ^,f3 
ai  <!i  a  be 


|;|„;|g||^ 


O'    03  7;    g    P    tH    03    (^    fl 


P  ^  fl  2  ®  i? 


2J    -2 


604  Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


d 

O 

2; 

§3^g§S^'*|:3S3g?3SIJ{3S 

§3 

^' 

CO                                           tH 

B 

d 

2; 

o 

Sgg§SS?:3°°^S?2S^^S«' 

s 

§S5g:S-SS;:Jg|^S;j^;35l 

1 

^ 

1 

^^S§3Sg5°°SSg;2:«§g;2; 

i 

1 

1 

§3Sg5SsS;2;sg5:?2^g5^ 

§ 

Q 

1— 1 
PP 

00 
d 

o 

§5S|Sg53?ISSgSS^§3S 

i 

^ 

1 

2 

1 

o 
Z 

5^^|S!S§5S'-§fe5:3«Si53  , 

i 

S5?2g^SgSS?3g^^g^?? 

u 

o 

i 

1-1 

1 

1 

( 

n 

00 

1 

§ 

< 
> 

flliiiltiiii} 

Appendix. 


605 


1 

o 

;^ 

d 

5R 

S§SS"'5:;'«S§^g?3^^S§3 

^ 

>^ 

^§5ssss^;5s^^<*^s^ 

iH 

^ 

o? 

O 

;z; 

OJ 

ot-(M-*Oeni-irH(55t-«5ineooO 

1^ 

g 

>H 

'-' 

OOOOlOlt-OCOWOOOONOOOOt- 

g 

o 

-^ 

6 

! 

1 

^ 

% 

^f2Ei^^^?3gSg?;;^^iSS 

U5 

\ 

1 

at 

6 

o 

s§|§s;f5S"';2;s|S^Si§S5S 

S 

CO 

o^o^ooo>coj.ogg^^^g3» 

CO 

■" 

;2:s|gi3j^"'^sg2§^«'^§3S 

00 

d 

^ 

" 

^ 

~ 

532§S^«^^g3§3g53^§gS?^ 

\a 

CU 

'A 

> 

tH 

O 

S^gSSS'^^SS^r^^^SsSSS 

^ 

t- 
d 

J?; 

g:'S[§r3Sg?3S:S|^Si§S^ 

^ 

(U 

g 

1 

;^ 

^ 

>* 

H 

Z 

P 

O 

o 

% 

< 

> 

•  a  ■ 0 

A 

•&*.:•••       •     -a   •   -o 

P 

03 

worth 

arlesto 

iremon 

rnish 

oydon 

shen  . 

antham 

ngdon 

mpster 

wport 

linfleld 

ringflel 

napee 

ity  ... 

ishlngt 

Totals 

1       o^.:::  o  t- o  t,  ca  oj  Q^.r:  p,3  fl^ 
1     <;ooc;a0OH:3M^pHmMp^ 

1 

606     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


to 

6 

o 
15 

■^5JI3'*;3'^S§5^»»'^  :55S^j35^i§«'§8°°SS  rgiSg^^^SS 

S 

«'§g?"l5^g§i3S?^^-^§^;5^|J2:^SggS||"'«S^^S* 

6 

o 

SS^^^'^^^iS;^^  ::?«'S^^g?|^S^S'^i5S  igS^J^'^SS 

1 

C^  '-1                       C<1         T-H  CO 

6 

o 

'^^Z'^^^f^t^n^i^  :^^^^?;;§^SS^^S^  :S?JS^i3S 

Q} 

;g^«'^?:?Sg?5Sj'«s-'5gS5^|g'««SgJ2||"'«S^'*'f:?a 

6 

o 

;5 

SJ^SSSg^'^SSIgS^  :?sSS^^^«'S5;5?2«gS  ig^SS^gJ^l 

1 

r-l                                                                                          e»5  C>J                     M         T-(  CO 

1 

o 

S3i§§S'*S"'^g3S?^'^^S*S5'*ig^S^I5S"lg!5  i^SS'^SS 

■  1 

6 
Z 

1 

o          !S1SJ^^^*S^^S^  :?^^^^S|S&53g«'§&^S;3^<^g^ 

^«         ^S35:'^:3*gg3i$"*2:'-^j§P;«>gg*SS|Sg5'^^^^'^^g3 

> 

c 

< 

4S  :  :  :a«  :  •  :fe  :ja  :«j  :  :  "^  iw  :  •  :  :  "2  :  :  :  :  :J 

ll'^g||2lilililig|lg|liiglig«is-i 

Appendix. 


60^ 


^^sss 

?s?^ 

g^^C.^C2« 

1 

!$?§?2e? 

:Si5 

i 

^^:^^r 

'^^ 

^§§i5!^l 

■■^^ 

i 

S^sjs-^s^ 

1 

• 

! 

•t8S' 


(o-'fotr 


>>2_g  03  cS  Oi  O 


608     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


1 

1 

?5§s3'''S'^s:;s;3'*"'^S'-''?i^'5?g'*ss?2"'sg?s  isss'^-'s: 

CQ 

Sf§t5-^??^Sg55°°'^  :??fv?§°°S^^^^SS^|"«g?i5'=^S 

1 

1 

^oo^ust^-iogc.^*  :  :g^«S";??2^s«5:"'t§iS  issS'^SS 

CO 

C>»  iH                       W         tH  CO 

6 

O 

S'cSS^g^^SS;"'^  :iS^?:J«:;:g=*?3*fS'*^S:S°^^^;:^ 

i» 

o 

^5§5-S«'5:gS5^?3^^!§S^|S'*gS§§|;1||«'«SS^I3S 

00 

6 

o 

S^S^5^S5;2;s°°^  :^^g3'"5g"'§'*|"*S§  :SgS^§:j^ 

>< 

;:3i2g"'SSig5SS'*;3^^g?i^g|i3g§sgS||"S^s^^g? 

6 

o 

2; 

S;^J3^^*'g§Sg^  :  :g<»gs  :^?::"i3at22^r;  iS^'^^S?:- 

S 

C 

t; 
c 

1 

< 

PC 

c 

1 

> 

■  !!!'  «H  ■.:;■:•:::::  :      ;:;■.:•;;:::: 

Sl-|ll2is|§ll|lg||i|lil§lss«£|?l 
ll|sllrlifesll22£g5ll||S|2S£Bg§a| 

<:<ooia:acao5QHBBt..aoXa:SB:jjjJj»!jjSooS 

Appendix. 


609 


•5  evj  oi  CM    •  o  t-   I  lo 

1(5  M  T-l  C-)      .  CM  rH     I    tH 


«0  CO  t-  •^  ■^  M  Tf 
i-H  00         C^l         CM  Tt< 


00 

p 

i5 

CM  in  c»  o  ■*  p  eo 

22 

c<f 

SSS?3 

s 

lO 

i 

■<^ 

C! 

cm" 

ig^^^ 

•  CMIO 

•eOrH 

- 

-H 

iSS^ 

iH      rneo 

■   r 


P  5  n  '-  a^  -"  "O       r 

>>    S    _£      ^      t'i      S'      <^ 


610     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 


Q 

r-i 

H 

♦-H 

m 

O 
«— ( 
H 

a 

o 

w 

H 
O 


t- 00  Ol  tH  ■>* -^ - 


04  Ifl  tH  »-l  US  «  ev3  ,H  t- iH  op  •«1<  t- OT  «e  H  **  «>  S  "i  ri      *  jS 


t- 15  «o  eo  o  CO  «o  tH  M  00  «o  eo  00  OS  oj  ;*  1-1  CD  eo  o  t--    •  j-j 
LO«o?DiHioinrt      i-iiHC<StHio-<»<-*«>  cqco(M    -eo 


l|^g^??°°'^"'    '1^1' 


JOJ^-^OOOJ 


§§§5  :S 


t~-«Dr-ii(SOt-eOTHmi-it-0'*<asO<M    •«ot-q»oo    -^ 


3t-<3JM        t-iH        rH  iH  iH  W  35  IM  g  Tl        ,H  iH  ,-1  lO      •© 
yHT-\  i-(         C<I         tH  tH 


SSlSS^tSiS-^igSSSS^SSK^Sg^gSg?  :S 


,«)^ia    .t-fOfoooooooi2oot--iMOOMi«oo 
;oioOt-i    .-^i-i      ,-(      ooin«£      •-     ■         ■--  - 


?3i2S^  :^ 


*-■  ^  »-■ 

03  0]  OS 
I 


2-^ 


C  o 


C  Oj 


iiii|ipi|llilil  ^ 


Appendix. 


611 


|§i3  :S;2;<^;:!^f2§g:!;<s«>^t3«3s»  :«    | 


C^ -^  -^  l-t -^  CC  a         THrHM         •^nC^iO  MlSw      -CO 


e^i5!i2i2      •  rt  23  «^  *"^  SJ  ?2  :*  ?5  ■*  "^  «)  U3  00  <o  O     -t- 
^  C~  rH  T-l      •iar-t  00  kO  t— iH  la  tH        iH  U3     '00 


JggS;:!^^^  I'-jg^^Sog.fs^^-fs-N 


SSS  :^ 


'evsT-(i--icoooa>epooccirto}ooo 


tr- 00  »  r-(  ■««<  in  eo      iH  iH  la »-( tH  CO  ■>«<  >o  r-i  ta  ^    ••^ 


^^^iS  :§3*^"««'^S^g««g;«'«'S"';^!g  :ig 


•««  «D  te  rt  •*  CO  eo      .r-t        ■*  tH  t- eO  •<*  us  (NkOrH 


|ggiS^?iS^SSSSgSS*^"'^SgS  :S 


cooso"5coeoeM^05«o^eoevi'^OJ'r-ir-(ev]t— tool    -to 


)t-00lOrHI— <»C0'»»<CDM'<«<Tf>'^.^C<5t-O'9"^'-l      -co 


1-iiMeo 
eS  «J  OS 

>-  O  >--  ,1  C  o  ^  • 


SSm 


o 
a 

-2^  o  oj     "3 
6  3     b  £  ^  "g     -g 


-     o  o^  3  tH  o^g  oj- o-ti  «^i3i;i:4.i^ 


612     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention, 


in  CO  «  t-  c<i  s^  o  s-i  t:;  -^   I 
r:  r-i  t-  eo  r-i  -"C^^J-.  t^  "^^."^ 


I- 


eoe<im'<t<'*"ooTHev3*eo 


cq  oo  eo  eo  22  2^ 
)  ■^  Tf  «;  t—  uo  05  o> 


I  05  t-  S^?5  eo  o  i^^O 
eo'  ic  tH  -th  m  1-1 


j'^'^eot-coiooooo 

l-HC-f 


o 

in 

?° 

M 

s 

o 

^;:::?2§?§^ 

^ 

CVJ 

1^- 

^ 

d 

rH  »-l          C^>-<*>  .-i 

CI 

00 

t— WOOlOCOO^OOOi 


^•^O-fOONooioeo 
t-  00  to  o  t^  00  to  o  t-;0. 

cS  y-i  i-i  i-i  ei  id  y-*  rH(riiH 


,HOOo90i-i-»»«t-oeoi3 
c<it-«5inin'^"5u3<3>oo 


•5««er-(l31C<50«er-l«C>( 


(MCor^f^MMiOooMO 
oo2?^'^'-''-''2e^o»?5 


t^  rH  N  25 'T  eo  eo  o  00  e;;   w 
o  '«  00  do  oi  --i  CO  oi  evj  O   'f' 


ctf  •  :  :  ^  a  •  • 


5»  o 


U  TO  »3--i 


CJ  K  ;2  o  S  E  c  V2  ou 


Appendix. 


613 


13  CO  i-'i  t-  -^  >«  to  m  lo  5 

f~  QC  y-l  t~  yi  tr  ^O  i^  ,-) '. 

ow<t>eo^^u5l^-^<oi( 


r-T  r-T  -4        Cvf  ■*  i-l 


lO  T-l  i-H  rH  M  l«  t—  OJ         O 


O0lf5COMO500-*ie<3l»<» 


^ 


I —  I 

OarHTH         eolOi-HT-lMi 


?D  t— 00  M  O  ■*  t~  "'i -^  5 


z     I    - 


CCOSW>*'«0<5St-<»005 


C-T»tOJ«jOTHi-IOeOIMU5 
irq  lO  30 -^  «i  as  CO  O  «5 

t-ojt-iot-co  — 


I  o  t-  t-  t- 


OO  e5  rH  to  00  #0  t- lO  00  0= 

e<9  35  th  t-  e«  00  e^'-i*i'-l 

NrHrH        CO  lOi-TrHNl-T 


OJt-CO-^r-lT-llO-^OOt- 


■^  t-  CO  Oi  lO  00_^lA  (M  -^^Cq 
MrHt-T        CO  in  i-TtHC^I  tH 


3  •  :  :^3 

x^  a  t,  ^  "^  oi-'^a  to 
pi  M  ra  o  ^  K  u  CO  o  o 


m. 

PKOCLAMATION  OF  HIS  EXCELLENCY,  GOVEKNUK 
EOBEET  P.  BASS. 


PROCLAMATION  OF  HIS  EXCELLENCY 
GOVERNOR  ROBERT  P.  BASS. 


STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 
ExEcruTivE  Department, 

CoNOORD,  November  20,  1912. 

Be  it  known,  that  I,  Robert  P.  Bass,  governor  of  the  state 
of  New  Ha(mpshire,  in  obediene  to  the  request  of  the  Consti- 
tutional Convention  of  said  state,  holden  in  June,  1912,  do 
hereby  proclaim  to  the  people  of  this  state  that  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  state  is  amended  as  provided  for  in  the  seventh, 
eighth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  propositions  or  questions  sub- 
mitted by  said  Constitutional  Convention  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state  at  meetings  held  in  the  several  towns,  city 
wards,  and  places  in  this  state  on  the  Tuesday  next  following 
the  first  Monday  of  November,  1912. 

All  the  alterations  and  amendments  in  said  Constitution 
covered  by  said  several  propositions  or  questions  have  been 
adopted,  and  the  Constitution  is  thus  amended  by  the  suf- 
frages of  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  legal  voters  present  at 
said  meetings,  and  voting  upon  said  questions. 

I  further  proclaim  to  the  people  of  this  state  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  state  is  not  amended,  as  provided  for  in  the 
first,  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  ninth,  and  twelfth 
propositions  or  questions  submitted  by  'said  Convention  to 
the  qualified  voters  of  the  state  at  meetings  held  in  the  sev- 
eral towns,  city  wards,  and  places  in  this  state  on  the  Tuesday 
next  following  the  first  Monday  of  November,  1912,  as  none 
of  these  last-mentioned  propositions  or  questions,  nor  the 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  covered  by  the  same,  were 

617 


618      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

adopted  by  the  suffrages  of  two  thirds  of  the  legal  voters  pres- 
ent at  said  meetings  and  voting  upon  said  questions. 

[seal]     Given  under  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  said  state,, 
at  the  council  chamber,  this  twentieth  day  of 
November,  A.  D.   1912,  and  of  the  Indepen- 
dence of  the  United  States   of   America,   the 
one  hundred  and  thirty-seventh. 

ROBERT  P.  BASS. 
By  the  Grovernor, 

Edwaet)  N.  Peakson,  Secretary  of  State. 


IV. 

THE  AMEl^DED  COXSTITUTTOK 


CONSTITUTION 

OF  THE 

STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


PART   FIRST— BILL   OF  RIGHTS. 

Article 

1.  Equality   of   men;    origin   and    ob- 

ject of  government". 

2.  Natural  rights. 

?.    Society,       its      organization      and 

purposes, 
s     Rights   of   conscience   unalienable. 
5     Religious   freedom   recognized. 

6.  Public    worship    of    the    Deity    to 

be  encouraged;  right  of  elect- 
ing religious  teachers;  free  tol- 
eration; existing  contracts  not 
affected. 

7.  State    Sovereignty. 

8.  Accountability   of   magistrates  and 

officers  to  the  people. 

9.  No   hereditary   office  or   place. 

10.  Right  of   revolution. 

11.  Elections    and    elective    franchise. 

12.  Protection      ana      taxation      recip- 

rocal; private  property  for  pub- 
lic use. 

13.  Conscientiously       scrupulous      not 

compellable  to  bear  arms. 

14.  Legal    remedies    to    be    free,    com- 

plete   and    prompt. 

15.  Accused   entitled   to   full   and   sub- 

stantial statement  of  charge; 
not  obliged  to  furnish  evidence 
against  himself;  may  produce 
proofs    and    be    fully    heard,    etc. 

16.  No    person   to    be    again    tried    af- 

ter an  acquittal;  trial  by  jury  in 
capital  cases. 

17.  Criminal    trials    in    county,    except 

in   general    insurrection. 

18.  Penalties    to    be     proportioned    to 

offenses;  true  design  of  punish- 
ment. 

19.  Searches    and    seizures   regulated. 

20.  Trial   by  jury  in  civil  causes;  ex- 

ceptions. 

21.  Only  qualified  persons  to  serve  as 

jurors,  and  to  be  fully  compen- 
sated. 

22.  Liberty  of  the  press. 

23.  Retrospective    laws    prohibited. 

24.  Militia. 

25.  Standing  armies. 

26.  Military,   subject  to   civil   power. 

27.  Quartering  of  soldiers. 

28.  Taxes    to    be    levied    only    by    the 

people  or  legislature. 


Article 


30. 
31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 
35. 
36. 
37. 


38. 


Suspension  of  laws  by  legislature 
only. 

Freedom  of  speech. 

Meetings  of  legislature,  for  what 
purpose. 

Rights  of  assembly,  instruction, 
and  petition. 

Excessive  bail,  fines  and  punish- 
ments  prohibited. 

Martial  law  limited. 

The    judiciary;    tenure    of    office. 

Pensions. 

The  legislative,  executive  and  ju- 
dicial departments  to  be  kept 
separate. 

Social   virtues  inculcated. 


PART      SECOND— FORM      OF      GOV- 
ERNMENT. 


1.  Name  of  body  politic. 

2.  Legislature,   how   constituted. 

3.  General   Court,   when  to  meet  and 

dissolve. 

4.  Power   of   general   court    to    estab- 

lish courts. 

5.  To  make  laws,  elect  officers,  define 

their  powers   and   duties,   impose 
fines,  and  assess  taxes. 

6.  Valuation  of  estates. 

7.  Members  of  legislature  not  to  take 

fees  or  act  as  counsel. 

8.  Legislature      to      sit      with      open 

doors. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 


10. 


Representatives  elected  biennially; 
ratio   of   representation. 

Small  towns  may  elect  a  propor- 
tionate  part   of   time. 

EXECUTIVE  POWER- 
GOVERNOR. 

Biennial  election  of  representa- 
tives in  November. 

Qualifications   of   electors. 

Representatives,  how  elected,  and 
qualifications  of. 

Compensation   of  legislature. 

Vacancies   in   house,    how  filled. 


621 


622      JouRisAL  oi'  Constitutional  Convention. 


16.  House  to  impeach  before  the  sen- 

ate. 

17.  Money  bills  to  originate  in  house. 

18.  Power  of  adjournment  limited. 

19.  Quorum,    what   constitutes. 

20.  Privileges  of  members  of  the  leg- 

islature. 

21.  House    to    elect    speaker    and    offi- 

cers,   settle   rules   of   proceeding, 
and  punish  misconduct. 

22.  Senate    and    executive    have    like 

powers;     imprisonment    limited. 

23.  Journal  and  laws  to  be  published; 

yeas  and  nays  and  protests. 

SENATE. 

24.  Senate,  how  constituted;   tenure  of 

office. 

25.  Senatorial     districts,     how    consti- 

tuted. 

26.  Election  of  senators. 

27.  Senators,      how     and      by      whom 

chosen;    fight  of   suffrage. 

28.  Qualification  of  senators. 

29.  Inhabitant    defined. 

30.  Inhabitants  of  incorporated  places; 

their  rights,  etc. 

31.  Biennial     meetings,   how     warned, 

governed,  and  conducted;  return 
of  votes. 

32.  Governor    and    council    to    count 

votes  for  senators  and  notify  the 
persons  elected. 

33.  Vacancies    in    senate,    how    filled. 

34.  Senate  judges   of   their   own   elec- 

tions. 

35.  Adjournments    limited,    except    In 

impeachment  cases. 

36.  Senate  to  elect  their  own  officers; 

quorum. 

37.  Senate      to      try      impeachments; 

mode  of  proceeding. 

38.  Judgment    on    impeachments    lim- 

ited. 

39.  Chief  justice    to    preside    on   im- 

pea.;hment   of  governor. 

40.  Title  of  governor. 

41.  Election    of    governor;     return    of 

votes;  electors;  if  no  choice,  leg- 
islature to  elect  one  of  two 
highest  candidates;  qualifications 
for  governor. 
•42.  In  case  of  disagreement,  governor 
to  adjourn  or  prorogue  legisla- 
ture; if  infectious  distemper  or 
other  causes  exist,  may  convene 
them  elsewhere. 

43.  Veto   of   governor   to  bills,    provi- 

sions as  to. 

44.  Resolves  to  be  treated  like  bills. 
4.).    Governor  and  council  to  nominate 

and  appoint  officers;  nomination 
three   days   before   appointment. 

46.  governor   and   council    have   nega- 

tive   on   each   other. 

47.  Field    officers    to   recommend,   and 

governor     to    appoint,     company 
officers. 

48.  President  of  senate  to  act  as  gov- 

ernor  when   office  vacant. 


Article 

49.  Governor   to   prorogue   or  adjourn 

legislature  and  call  extra  ses- 
sions. 

50.  Power   and   duties   of   governor   as 

commander-in-chief;   limitation. 

51.  Pardoning  power. 

52.  Militia  officers,   removal   of. 

53.  Staff    and    non-commissioned    offi- 

cers,  by  whom   appointed. 

54.  Division    of    militia   into   brigades, 

regiments,   and   companies. 

55.  Money  drawn    from   treasury  only 

by  warrant  of  governor  pursu- 
ant to  law. 

56.  Accounts   of   military    stores,    etc., 

to  be  rendered  quarterly. 

57.  Compensation     of     governor     and 

council. 

58.  Salary  of  judges. 

COUNCIL. 

59.  Councilors,   mode  of  election,   etc. 
eo.    Vacancies,  how  filled,  if  no  choice. 

61.  Occurring     afterward;     new    elec- 

tion; governor  to  convene;  du- 
ties. 

62.  Impeachment    of   councilors. 

63.  Secretary  to  record  proceedings  of 

council. 

64.  Councilor  districts   provided  for. 

65.  Elections    by    legislature    may    be 

adjourned  from  day  to  day;  or- 
der thereof. 

SECRETARY,      TREASURER,      COM- 
MISSARY-GENERAL, ETC. 

66.  Election    of    secretary,     treasurer, 

and  commissary-general. 
.67.    State  records,  where  kept;  duty  of 
secretary. 

68.  Deputy  secretary. 

69.  Secretary  to  give  bond. 

COUNTY   TREASURERS,    ETC. 

70.  County  treasurers  and  registers  of 

probate,  solicitors,  sheriffs,  and 
registers  of  deeds  elected. 

71.  Counties  may  be  divided  into  dis- 

tricts for  registering  deeds. 

JUDICIARY  POWER. 

72.  Tenure   of   office    to    be    expressed 

in  commissions;  judges  to  hold 
office  during  good  behavior,  etc.; 
removable  by  address.  , 

73.  Judges  to  give  opinions,  when. 

74.  Justices  of  the  peace  commissioned 

for  five  years. 

75.  Divorces  and  appeals,  where  tried. 

76.  Jurisdiction     of    justices     In    civil 

causes. 

77.  Judges  and  sheriffs,  when  disqual- 

ified by  age. 

78.  Judges  and  justices  not  to  act  as 

counsel. 

79.  Jurisdiction  and  terms  of  probate 

courts. 


Appendix. 


623 


Articles 

80.  Judges    and    registers    of    probate 

not  to  act  as  counsel. 

CLERKS    OF    COURTS. 

81.  Clerks    of    courts,    by    whom    ap- 

pointed. 

ENCOURAGEMENT       OF       LITERA- 
TURE,  ETC. 

82.  Encouragement  of   literature,    etc. 

OATHS    AND    SUP'^CRIPTIONS,    EX- 
CLUSIVE  FROM    OFFICE,    ETC. 

83.  Oath  of  civil  officers. 

84.  Before  whom   taken. 

85.  Form  of  commissions. 

86.  Form  of  writs. 


Article 


87. 


95. 


100. 


Form  of  indictments,  etc. 

Suicides   and    deodands. 

Existing  laws  to  continue  in 
force,  if  not  repugnant  to  con- 
stitution. 

Habeas  Corpus. 

Enacting    style    of    statutes. 

Governor  and  judges  prohibited 
from  holding  other  offices. 

Incompatability  of  offices;  only 
two  offices  of  profit  to  be 
holden  at  same  time. 

Incompatability  of  certain  offices. 

Bribery  and  corruption  aisquali- 
fy  for  office. 

Value   of   money,    how  computed. 

Constitution,  when  to  take  effect. 

Revision  of  constitution  pro- 
vided for. 

Question  on  revision  to  be  taken 
every  seven  years. 

Enrollment   of   constitution. 


PART  FIEST. 


BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 


Article  1.  All  men  are  born  equally  free  and  indepen- 
dent; therefore  all  government  of  right  originates  from  the 
people,  is  founded  in  consenit,  and  instituted  for  the  general 
good. 

Art.  2.  All  men  have  certain  natural,  essential,  and  in- 
herent rights,  among  which  are  the  enjoying  and  defending 
life  and  libert}^,  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  prop- 
erty, and,  in  a  word,  of  seeking  and  obtaining  happiness. 

Art.  3.  When  men  enter  into  a  state  of  society  they  sur- 
render up  some  of  their  natural  rights  to  that  society  in  order 
to  insure  the  protection  of  o'thers;  and,  without  such  an  equiv- 
alent, the  surrender  is  void. 


Art.  4.  Among  the  natural  rights,  some  are  in  their  very 
nature  unalienable,  because  no  equivalent  can  be  given  or 
received  for  them.     Of  this  kind  are  the  rights  of  conscience. 

Art.  5.  Every  individual  has  a  natural  and  unalienable 
right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  con- 
science and  reason;  and  no  subject  shall  be  hurt,  molested  or 


624     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

restrained;,  in  his  person,  liberty  or  estate,  for  worshiping  God 
in  ithe  manner  and  season  most  agreeable  to  the  dictates  of 
his  own  conscience,  or  for  his  religious  profession,  sentiments 
or  persuasion,  provided  he  doth  not  disturb  the  public  peace 
or  disturb  others  in  their  religious  worship. 

Art.  6.  As  morality  and  piety,  rightly  grounded  on  evan- 
gelical principles,  will  give  the  best  and  greates-t  security  to 
government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  strongest 
obligations  to  due  subjection,  and  as  the  knowledge  of  these 
is  most  likely  ito  be  propagated  through  a  society  by  the  insti- 
tution of  the  public  worship  of  the  Deity  and  of  public  in- 
struction in  morality  and  religion,  therefore,  to  promote  these 
important  purposes,  the  people  of  this  state  have  a  right  to 
empower,  and  do  hereby  fully  empower,  the  legislature  to 
authorize,  from  time  to  time,  the  several  towns,  parishes,  bod- 
ies corporate,  or  religious  societies  within  this  state  to  make 
adequate  provision,  at  their  own  expense,  for  the  support  and 
maintenance  of  public  Protestant  teachers  of  piety,  religion, 
and  morality.  Provided,  notwithstanding,  that  the  several 
towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate  or  religious  societies  shall 
at  all  times  have  the  exclusive  right  of  electing  their  own  pub- 
lic teachers,  and  of  contracting  with  them  for  their  support 
and  maintenance.  And  no  person  of  any  one  particular  re- 
ligious sect  or  denomination  shall  ever  be  compelled  to  pay 
towards  the  support  of  the  teacher  or  teachers  of  another  per- 
suasion, sect  or  denomination.  And  every  denomination  of 
Christians,  demeaning  themselves  quietly  and  as  good  sub- 
jects of  the  state,  shall  be  equally  under  the  protection  of  the 
law;  and  no  subordination  of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to 
another  shall  ever  be  established  by  law.  And  nothing 
herein  shall  be  understood  to  affect  any  former  contracts  made 
for  the  support  of  the  ministry;  but  all  such  contracts  shall 
remain  and  be  in  the  same  state  as  if  this  Constitution  had 
not  been  made. 

Art.  7.  The  people  of  this  state  have  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive right  of  governing  themselves  as  a  free,  sovereign,  and 


Appendix.  625 

independent  state,  and  do,  and  forever  hereafter  shall,  exercise 
and  enjoy  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right  pertaining 
thereto  which  is  not  or  may  not  hereafter  be  by  them  express- 
ly delegated  to  the  United  States  of  America  in  congress 
assembled. 

Art.  8.  All  power  residing  originally  in,  and  being  de- 
rived from,  the  people,  all  the  magistrates  and  officers  of  gov- 
ernment are  their  substitutes  and  agents,  and  at  all  times 
accountable  to  them. 

Aet.  9.  No  office  or  place  whatsoever  in  government  shall 
be  hereditary,  the  abilities  and  integrity  requisite  in  all  not 
being  transmissible  to  posterity  or  relations. 

Art.  10.  Government  being  instituted  for  the  common 
benefit,  protection,  and  security  of  the  whole  community,  and 
not  for  the  private  interest  or  emolument  of  any  one  man, 
family,  or  class  of  men,  therefore,  whenever  the  ends  of  gov- 
ernment are  perverted  and  public  liberty  manifestly  endan- 
gered, and  all  other  means  of  redress  are  ineffectual,  the  peo- 
ple may,  and  of  right  ought  to,  reform  the  old  or  establish  a 
new  government.  The  doctrine  of  non-resistance  against 
arbitrary  power  and  oppression  is  absurd,  slavish,  and  destruc- 
tive of  the  good  and  happiness  of  mankind. 

Art.  11.  All  elections  ought  to  be  free;  and  every  inhab- 
itant of  the  state,  having  the  proper  qualifiations,  has  equal 
right  to  elect  and  be  elected  into  office;  but  no  person  shall 
have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  this  state,  who  shall  not  be  able  to  read  the  Con- 
stitution in  ithe  English  language,  and  to  write,  provided, 
however,  that  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  any  person 
prevented  by  a  physical  disability  from  complying  with  its 
requisitions,  nor  to  any  person  who  now  has  the  right  to 
vote,  nor  to  any  person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or 
upwards  on  the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1904;  and  pro- 
vided fiirther,  that  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or 
be  eligible  to  office  under  the  constitution  of  this  state  who 


626      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

shall  have  been  convicted  of  treason,  bribery,  or  any  wilful 
violation  of  the  election  laws  of  this  state  or  of  the  United 
States;  but  the  Supreme  Court  may,  on  notice  to  the  attor- 
ney-general restore  the  privileges  of  an  elector  to  any  person 
who  may  have  forfeited  them  by  conviction  of  such  offenses. 

Art.  12.  Every  member  of  the  community  has  a  right  to 
be  protected  by  it  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  life,  liberty,  and 
property.  He  is,  therefore,  bound  to  contribute  his  share  in 
the  expense  of  such  protection,  and  to  yield  his  personal  ser- 
vi'ce,  when  necessary,  or  an  equivalent.  But  no  part  of  a 
man's  property  shall  be  taken  from  him  or  applied  to  public 
uses  without  his  own  consent  or  that  of  the  representative 
body  of  the  people.  Nor  are  the  inhabitants  of  this  state 
conifcrollable  by  any  other  laws  than  those  to  which  they  or 
their  representative  body  have  given  their  consent. 

Art.  13.  No  person  who  is  conscientiously  scrupulous 
about  the  lawfulness  of  bearing  arms  shall  be  compelled  there- 
to, provided  he  will  pay  an  equivalent. 

Art.  14.  Every  subject  of  this  state  is  entitled  to  a  certain 
remedy,  by  having  recourse  to  the  laws,  for  all  injuries  he 
may  receive  in  his  person,  property,  or  character;  to  obtain 
right  and  justice  freely,  without  being  obliged  to  purchase 
it;  completely  and  without  any  denial;  promptly,  and  with- 
out delay;  conformably  to  the  laws. 

Art.  15.  No  subject  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  any  crime 
or  offense  until  the  same  is  fully  and  plainly,  substantially 
and  formally,  described  to  him,  or  be  compelled  to  accuse 
or  furnish  evidence  against  himself.  And  every  subject  shall 
have  a  right  to  produce  all  proofs  that  may  be  favorable  to 
himself,  to  meet  the  witnesses  against  him  face  to  face,  and  to 
be  fully  heard  in  his  defense  by  himself  and  counsel.  And 
no  subject  shall  be  arrested,  imprisoned,  despoiled,  or  deprived 
of  his  property,  immunities,  or  privileges,  put  out  of  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law,  exiled  or  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty,  or 
estate,  but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the 
land. 


Appendix.  627 

Art.  16.  No  subject  shall  be  liable  to  be  tried,  after  an 
acquittal,  for  the  same  crime  or  offense;  nor  shall  the  legisla- 
ture make  any  law  that  shall  subject  any  person  to  a  capital 
punishment  (excepting  for  the  government  of  the  army  and 
navy,  and  'the  militia  in  actual  service)  without  trial  by  jury. 

Art.  17.  In  criminal  prosecutions,  the  trial  of  facts  in 
the  vicinity  where  they  happen  is  so  essential  to  the  security 
of  the  life,  liberty,  and  estate  of  the  citizen,  that  no  crime  or 
offense  ought  to  be  tried  in  any  other  county  than  that  in 
which  it  is  committed,  except  in  cases  of  general  insurrection 
in  any  particular  county,  when  it  shall  appear  to  the  judges  of 
the  superior  court  that  an  impartial  trial  cannot  be  had  in  the 
county  where  the  offense  may  be  committed,  and,  upon  their 
report,  the  legislature  shall  think  proper  to  direct  the  trial  in 
the  nearest  county  in  which  an  impartial  trial  can  be  obtained. 

Art.  18.  All  penalties  ought  to  be  proportioned  to  the 
nature  of  the  offense.  No  wise  legislature  will  affix  the  same 
punishment  to  the  crimes  of  theft,  forgery,  and  the  like,  which 
they  do  to  those  of  murder  and  treason.  Where  the  same 
undistinguishing  severity  is  exerted  against  all  offenses,  the 
people  are  led  to  forget  the  real  distinction  in  the  crimes 
themselves  and  to  commit  the  most  flagrant  with  as  little 
compunction  as  they  do  the  lightest  offenses.  For  the  same 
reason,  a  multitude  of  sanguinary  laws  is  both  impolitic  and 
unjust,  the  true  design  of  all  punishments  being  to  reform, 
not  to  exterminate  mankind. 

Art.  19.  Every  subject  hath  a  right  to  be  secure  from  all 
unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  of  his  person,  his  houses, 
his  papers,  and  all  his  possessions.  Therefore,  all  warrants  to 
search  suspected  places  or  arrest  a  person  for  examination  or 
trial,  in  prosecutions  for  criminal  matters,  are  contrary  to  this 
right,  if  the  cause  or  foundation  of  them  be  not  previously 
supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  if  the  order,  in  a  war- 
rant to  a  civil  officer,  to  make  search  in  suspected  places  or  to 
arrest  one  or  more  suspected  persons  or  to  seize  their  property, 


628     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

be  not  accompanied  with  a  special  designation  of  the  person 
or  object  of  search,  arrest,  or  seizure;  and  no  warrant  ought 
to  be  issued  but  in  cases  and  with  the  formalities  prescribed 
by  law. 

Art.  20.  In  all  controversies  concerning  property  and  in 
all  suits  between  -two  or  more  persons,  except  in  cases  in  which 
it  has  been  heretofore  otherwise  used  and  practiced,  and  ex- 
cept in  cases  in  which  the  value  in  controversy  does  not  exceed 
one  hundred  dollars  and  title  of  real  estate  is  not  concerned, 
the  parties  have  a  right  to  trial  by  jury;  and  this  method  of 
procedure  shall  be  held  sacred,  unless,  in  cases  arising  on  the 
high  seas  and  such  as  relate  to  mariners'  wages,  the  legislature 
shall  think  it  necessary  hereafter  to  alter  it. 

Art.  21.  In  order  to  reap  the  fullest  advantage  of  the 
inestimable  privilege  of  trial  by  jury,  great  care  ought  to  be 
taken  that  none  but  qualified  persons  should  be  appointed  to 
serve;  and  such  ought  to  be  fully  compensated  for  their  travel, 
time,  and  attendance. 

Art.  22.  The  liberty  of  the  press  is  essential  to  the  security 
of  freedom  in  a  state;  it  ought,  therefore,  to  be  inviolably  pre- 
served. 

Art.  23.  Eetrospective  laws  are  highly  injurious,  oppres- 
sive, and  unjusit.  No  such  laws,  therefore,  should  be  made, 
either  for  the  decision  of  civil  causes  or  the  punishment  of 
offenses. 

Art.  24.  A  well-regulated  militia  is  the  proper,  natural, 
and  sure' defense  of  a  state. 

Art.  25.  Standing  armies  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and 
ought  not  to  be  raised  or  kept  up  without  the  consent  of  the 
legislature. 

Art.  26.  In  all  cases  and  at  all  times,  the  military  ought 
to  be  under  strict  subordination  to,  and  governed  by.  the  civil 
power. 


Appendix.  629 

Art.  27.  No  soldier,  in  time  of  peace,  shall  be  quartered 
in  any  house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner;  and,  in  time 
of  war,  such  quarters  ought  not  to  be  made  but  by  the  civil 
magistrate,  in  a  manner  ordained  by  the  legislature. 

Art.  28.  No  subsidy,  charge,  tax,  impost,  or  duty  shall 
be  established,  fixed,  laid,  or  levied,  under  any  pretext  what- 
soever, without  the  consent  of  the  people  or  their  representa- 
tives in  the  legislature,  or  authority  derived  from  that  body. 

Art.  29.  The  power  of  suspending  the  laws  or  the  execu- 
tion of  them  ought  never  to  be  exercised  but  by  the  legisla- 
ture, or  by  authority  derived  therefrom,  to  be  exercised  in 
such  particular  cases  only  as  the  legislature  shall  expressly 
provide  for. 

Art.  30.  The  freedom  of  deliheration,  speech,  and  debate 
in  either  house  of  the  legislature  is  so  essential  to  the  rights 
of  the  people,  that  it  cannot  be  the  foundation  of  any  action, 
complaint,  or  prosecution  in  any  other  court  or  place  what- 
soever. 

Art.  31.  The  legislature  shall  assemble  for  the  redress 
of  public  grievances  and  for  making  such  laws  as  the  pub- 
lic good  may  require. 

Art.  32.  The  people  have  a  right,  in  an  orderly  and 
peaceable  manner,  to  assemble  and  consult  upon  the  common 
good,  give  instructions  to  their  representatives,  and  to  request 
of  the  legislative  body,  by  way  of  petition  or  remonstrance, 
redress  of  the  wrongs  done  them,  and  of  the  grievances  they 
suffer. 

Art.  33.  No  magistrate  or  court  of  law  shall  demand  ex- 
cessive bail  or  sureties,  impose  excessive  fines  or  inflict  cruel 
or  unusual  punishments. 

Art.  34.  No  person  can  in  any  case  be  subjected  to  law 
martial  or  to  any  pains  or  penalties  by  virtue  of  that  law, 
except  those  employed  in  the  army  or  navy,  and  except  the 
militia  in  actual  service,  but  by  authority  of  the  legislature. 


630     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention 

Art.  35.  It  is  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  rights 
of  every  individual,  his  life,  liberty,  property,  and  character, 
that  there  be  an  impartial  interpretation  of  the  laws  and  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  It  is  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  be 
tried  by  judges  as  impartial  as  the  lot  of  humanity  will  admit. 
It  is,  'therefore,  not  only  the  best  policy,  but  for  the  security 
of  the  rights  of  the  people,  that  the  judges  of  the  supreme 
judicial  court  should  hold  their  offices  so  long  as  they  behave 
well,  subject,  however,  to  such  limitations  on  account  of  age 
as  may  be  provided  by  the  Constitution  of  the  state;  and  that 
they  should  have  honorable  salaries,  ascertained  and  estab- 
lished by  standing  laws. 

Art.  36.  Economy  being  a  most  essential  virtue  in  all 
states,  especially  in  a  young  one,  no  pension  should  be  granted 
but  in  consideration  of  actual  services;  and  such  pensions 
ought  to  be  granted  with  great  caution  by  the  legislature,  and 
never  for  more  than  one  year  at  a  time. 

Art.  37.  In  the  government  of  this  state,  the  three  essen- 
tial powers  thereof — 'to  wit,  the  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial — ought  to  be  kept  as  separate  from,  and  independent 
of,  each  other  as  the  nature  of  a  free  government  will  admit 
or  as  is  consistent  with  that  chain  of  connection  that  binds 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  Constitution  in  one  indissoluble  bond 
of  union  and  amity. 

Art.  38.  A  frequent  recurrence  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  Constitution  and  a  constant  adherence  to  justice, 
moderation,  temperance,  industry,  frugality,  and  all  the  social 
virtues,  are  indispensably  necessary  to  preserve  the  blessings 
of  liberty  and  good  government.  The  people  ought,  there- 
fore, to  have  a  particular  regard  to  all  those  principles  in  the 
choice  of  their  officers  and  representatives;  and  they  have  a 
right  to  require  of  their  lawgivers  and  magistrates  an  exact 
and  constant  observance  of  them  in  the  formation  and  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  necessary  for  the  good  administration  of  gov- 
ernment. 


Appendix.  631 

PART  SECOND. 

FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

Article  1.  The  people  inhabiting  the  territory  formerly 
called  The  Province  of  New  Hampshire  do  hereby  solemnly 
and  mutually  agree  with  each  other  to  form  themselves  into  a 
free,  sovereign,  and  independent  body  politic,  or  state,  by  the 
name  of  The  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

general  court. 

Art.  2.  The  supreme  legislative  power  within  this  state 
shall  be  vested  in  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives,  each 
of  which  shall  have  a  negative  on  the  other. 

Art.  3.  The  senate  and  house  shall  assemble  biennially, 
on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January  and  at  such  other  times  as 
they  may  judge  necessary,  and  shall  dissolve  and  be  dissolved 
seven  days  nest  preceding  the  said  first  Wednesday  of  Janu- 
ary biennially,  and  shall  be  styled  Thei  General  Court  op 
New  Hampshire. 

Art.  4.  The  general  court  shall  forever  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  erect  and  constitute  judicatories  and  courts 
of  record  or  other  courts,  to  be  holden  in  'the  name  of  the 
state,  for  the  hearing,  trying,  and  determining  all  manner  of 
crimes,  offenses,  pleas,  processes,  plaints,  actions,  causes,  mat- 
ters, and  things  whatsoever,  arising  or  happening  within  this 
state,  or  between  or  concerning  persons  inhabiting,  or  resid- 
ing, or  brought  within  the  same,  or  whether  the  same  be  crim- 
inal or  civil,  or  whether  the  crimes  be  capital  or  not  capital, 
and  whether  the  said  pleas  be  real,  personal,  or  mixed,  and 
for  the  awarding  and  issuing  execution  thereon;  to  which 
courts  and  judicatories  are  hereby  given  and  granted  full 
power  and  authority,  from  time  to  time,  to  administer  oaths 
or  affirmations  for  the  better  discovery  of  truth  in  any  matter 
in  controversy  or  depending  before  them. 


632     Journal  of  Constitutional    Convention. 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are  hereby 
given  and  granted  to  the  said  general  court,  from  time  to  time 
to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of  wholesome  and 
reasonable  orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordinances,  directions,  and 
instructions,  either  with  penalties  or  without,  so  as  the  same 
be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitution,  as  they  may 
judge  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  this  state  and  for  the  gov- 
erning and  ordering  thereof  and  of  the  subjects  of  the  same, 
for  the  necessary  support  and  defense  of  the  government 
thereof;  and  to  name  and  settle  biennially,  or  provide  by  fixed 
laws  for  the  naming  and  settling  all  civil  officers  within  this 
state,  such  officers  excepted  the  election  and  appointment  of 
whom  are  hereafter  in  this  form  of  government  otherwise  pro- 
vided for;  and  to  set  forth  the  several  duties,  powers,  and 
limits  of  the  several  civil  and  military  officers  of  this  state, 
and  the  forms  of  such  oaths  or  afiirmations  as  shall  be  re- 
spectively administered  unto  them  for  the  execution  of  their 
several  offices  and  places  so  as  the  same  be  not  repugnant  or 
contrary  to  this  Constitution;  and,  also,  to  impose  fines, 
mulcts,  imprisonments,  and  other  punishments;  and  to  impose 
and  levy  proportional  and  reasonable  assessments,  rates,  and 
taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of,  and  residents  within,  the 
said  state,  and  upon  all  estates  within  the  same,  to  be  issued 
and  disposed  of  by  warrant,  under  the  hand  of  the  governor 
of  this  state  for  the  time  being,  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  council,  for  the  public  service,  in  the  necessary  defense 
and  support  of  the  government  of  this  state  and  the  protec- 
tion and  preservation  of  the  subjects  thereof,  according  to 
such  acts  as  are  or  shall  be  in  force  within  the  same.  Pro- 
vided, that  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any  town  to 
loan  or  give  its  money  or  credit,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the 
benefit  of  any  corporation  having  for  its  object  a  dividend  of 
profits,  or  in  any  way  aid  the  same  by  taking  its  stock  or 
bonds. 


Art.  6 
thereof  may 


The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
r  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 


Appendix.  633 

other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
when  passing  by  will  or  inheritance;  and  there  shall  be  a  val- 
uation of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in 
ever}'  five  j^ears,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  general 
court  shall  order. 

Art.  7.  No  member  of  the  general  court  shall  take  fev3s, 
be  of  counsel  or  act  as  advocate  in  any  cause  before  either 
branch  of  the  legislature;  and,  upon  due  proof  thereof,  such 
member  shall  forfeit  his  seat  in  the  legislature. 

Art.  8.  The  doors  of  the  galleries  of  each  house  of  the 
legislature  shall  be  kept  open  to  all  persons  who  behave  de- 
cently, except  when  the  welfare  of  the  state,  in  the  opinion 
of  either  branch,  shall  require  secrecy. 

HOUSE  OB  REPRESEIN-TATIVBS. 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state, 
a  representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and 
founded  upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such 
representation  may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit, 
every  town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards 
of  cities  having  six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general 
census  of  the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States 
or  of  this  state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  eighteen  hun- 
dred such  inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so 
proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  twelve  hundred  such 
inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional 
representative:  provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the 
boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  'to  increase 
the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or  city  may 
be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census;  and  provided,  fur- 
ther, that,  'to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since  the  last  cen- 
sus have  been  divided  or  had  their  boundaries  or  ward  lines 
changed,  the  general  court,  in  session  next  before  these 
amendments  shall  take  effect,  shall  equitably  -apportion  repre- 
sentation in  such  manner  that  the  number  shall  not  be  greater 


634      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such  division  or  alteration 
been  made. 

AnT.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward  shall 
have  less  than  six  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  general  court 
shall  authorize  such  town,  place  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  to 
the  general  court  a  representative  such  proportionate  part  of 
the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six 
hundred;  but  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any  such 
town,  place  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such  representative, 
except  as  herein  provided. 

Art.  11.  The  members  of  the  house  of  representatives 
shall  be  chosen  biennially,  in  the  month  of  November,  and 
shall  be  the  second  branch  of  the  legislature. 

Art.  12.  All  persons  qualified  to  vote  in  the  election  of 
senators  shall  be  entitled  to  vote,  within  the  district  where 
they  dwell,  in  the  choice  of  representatives. 

Art.  13.  Every  member  of  the  house  of  representatives 
shall  be  chosen  by  ballot,  and,  for  two  years,  at  least,  next  pre- 
ceding his  election,  shall  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  this  state; 
shall  be,  at  the  time  of  his  election,  an  inhabitant  of  the  town, 
parish,  or  place  he  may  be  chosen  to  represent;  and  shall  cease 
to  represent  such  town,  parish,  or  place  immediately  on  his 
ceasing  to  be  qualified  as  aforesaid. 

Art.  14.  The  presiding  officers  of  both  houses  of  the  leg- 
islature shall  severally  receive  out  of  the  state  treasury  as 
compensation  in  full  for  their  services,  for  the  term  elected, 
the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  and  all  other  mem- 
bers thereof  seasonably  attending  and  not  departing  without 
license,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  dollars,  exclusive  of  mileage: 
provided,  however,  that  when  a  special  session  shall  be  called 
by  the  governor,  such  officers  and  members  shall  receive  for 
attendance  an  additional  compensation  of  three  dollars  per 
day  for  a  period  not  exceeding  fifteen  days,  anr]  the  usual 
mileage. 


Appendix.  635 

Art.  15.  All  intermediate  vacancies  in  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives may  be  filled  up  from  time  to  time  in  the  same 
manner  as  biennial  elections  are  made. 

Art.  16.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  be  the  grand 
inquest  of  the  state,  and  all  impeachments  made  by  them  shall 
be  heard  and  tried  by  the  senate. 

Art.  17.  All  money  bills  shall  originate  in  the  house  of 
representatives,  but  the  senate  may  propose  or  concur  with 
amendments  as  on  other  bills. 

Art.  18.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  have  power  to 
adjourn  themselves,  but  no  longer  than  two  days  at  a  time. 

Art.  19.  A  majori'ty  of  the  members  of  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives shall  be  a  quorum  for  doing  business,  but,  when 
less  than  two  thirds  of  the  representatives  elected  shall  be 
present,  the  assent  of  two  thirds  of  those  members  shall  be 
necessary  to  render  their  acts  and  proceedings  valid. 

Art.  20.  No  member  of  the  house  of  representatives  or 
senate  shall  be  arrested  or  held  to  bail  on  mesne  process  dur- 
ing his  going  to,  returning  from,  or  attendance  upon,  the 
court. 

Art.  21.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  choose  their 
own  speaker,  appoint  their  own  officers,  and  settle  the  rules  of 
proceedings  in  their  own  house,  and  shall  be  judge  of  the  re- 
turns, elections,  and  qualifications  of  its  members,  as  pointed 
out  in  this  Constitution.  They  shall  have  authority  to  pun- 
ish by  imprisonment  every  person  who  shall  be  guilty  of  disre- 
spect to  the  house,  in  its  presence,  by  any  disorderly  and  con- 
temptuous behavior,  or  by  threatening  or  ill  treating  any  of 
its  members,  or  by  obstructing  its  deliberations;  every  person 
guilty  of  a  breach  of  its  privileges  in  making  arrests  for  debt, 
or  by  assaulting  any  member  during  his  attendance  at  any 
session;  in  assaulting  or  disturbing  any  one  of  its  officers  in 
the  execution  of  any  order  or  procedure  of  the  house  in  as- 
saulting any  witness  or  other  person  ordered  to  attend  by, 


636      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

and  during  his  attendance  of,  the  house,  or  in  rescuing  any 
person  arrested  by  order  of  the  house,  knowing  them  to  be 
such. 

Akt.  22.  The  senate,  governor,  and  council  shall  have 
the  same  powers  in  like  cases,  provided,  that  no  imprisonment 
by  either  for  any  offense  exceed  ten  days. 

Art.  23.  The  journals  of  the  proceedings  and  all  public 
acts  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  shall  be  printed  and  pub- 
lished immediately  after  every  adjournment  or  prorogation, 
and,  upon  motion  made  by  any  one  member,  the  yeas  and  nays 
upon  any  question  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal,  and  any 
member  of  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives  shall  have  a 
right,  on  motion  made  at  the  time  for  that  purpose,  to  have 
his  protest  or  dissent,  with  the  reasons,  against  any  vote,  re- 
solve, or  bill  passed,  entered  on  the  journal. 

senate. 

Art.  24.  The  senate  shall  consist  of  twenty-four  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years  from  the  first  Wed- 
nesday of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And,  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide 
the  state  into  twenty-four  districts,  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be 
without  dividing  towns  and  unincorporated  places;  and,  in 
making  this  division,  they  shall  govern  themselves  by  the 
proportion  of  direct  taxes  paid  by  the  said  districts,  and  timely 
make  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  the  limits  of  each 
district. 

Art.  26.  The  free  holders  and  other  inhabitants  of  each 
district,  qualified  as  in  this  Constitution  is  provided,  shall, 
biennially  give  in  their  votes  for  a  senator  at  some  meeting 
li olden  in  the  month  of  November. 

Art.  27.  The  senate  shall  be  the  first  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature,  and  the  senators  shall  ho  chosen  in  the  following  man- 


Appendix.  637 

ner,  viz.:  every  male  inhabitant  of  each  town,  and  parish  with 
town  privileges,  and  places  unincorporated,  in  this  state,  of 
twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upward,  excepiting  paupers  and 
persons  excused  from  paying  taxes  at  their  own  request,  shall 
have  a  right,  at  the  biennial  or  other  meetings  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  said  'towns  and  parishes,  to  be  duly  warned  and  holden 
biennially,  forever,  in  the  month  of  November,  to  vote,  in  the 
town  or  parish  wherein  he  dwells,  for  the  senator  in  the  dis- 
trict whereof  he  is  a  member. 

Art.  28,  Provided^  nevertheless,  that  no  person  shall  be 
capable  of  being  elected  a  senator  who  is  not  of  the  age  of 
thirty  years,  and  who  shall  not  have  been  an  inhabitant  of 
this  state  for  seven  years  immediately  preceding  his  election; 
and,  at  the  time  thereof,  he  shall  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  dis- 
trict for  which  he.  shall  be  chosen. 

Art.  29.  And  every  person  qualified  as  the  Constitution 
provides  shall  be  considered  an  inhabitant,  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  and  being  elected  into  any  office  or  place  within  this 
state,  in  the  town,  parish,  and  plantation  where  he  dwelleth 
and  hath  his  home. 

Art.  30.  And  the  inhabitants  of  plantations  and  places 
unincorporated,  qualified  as  this  Constitution  provides,  who 
are  or  shall  be  required  to  assess  taxes  upon  themselves 
towards  the  support  of  government,  or  shall  be  taxed  therefor, 
shall  have  the  same  privilege  of  voting  for  senators,  in  the 
plantations  and  places  wherein  they  reside,  as  the  inhabitants 
of  the  respective  towns  and  parishes  aforesaid  have.  And 
Ihe  meetings  of  such  plantations  and  places,  for  that  purpose, 
shall  be  holden  biennially  in  the  month  of  November,  at  such 
places  respectively  therein  as  the  assessors  thereof  shall  direct; 
which  assessors  shall  have  like  authority  for  notifying  the 
electors,  collecting  and  returning  the  votes,  as  the  selectmen 
and  town  clerks  have  in  their  several  towns  by  this  Constitu- 
tion. 


638      Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Art.  31.  The  meetings  for  the  choice  of  governor,  coun- 
cil, and  senators  shall  be  warned  by  warrant  from  the  select- 
men, and  governed  by  a  moderator,  who  shall,  in  the  presence 
of  the  selectmen  (whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  attend),  in  open 
meeting,  receive  the  votes  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  such  towns 
and  parishes  present  and  qualified  to  vote  for  senators;  and 
shall,  in  said  meetings,  in  presence  of  the  said  selectmen  and 
of  the  town  clerk  in  said  meetings,  sort  and  count  the  said 
votes,  and  make  a  public  declaration  thereof,  with  the  name 
of  every  person  voted  for  and  the  number  of  votes  for  each 
person;  and  the  town  clerk  shall  make  a  fair  record  of  the 
same,  at  large,  in  the  town  book,  and  shall  make  out  a  fair 
attested  copy  thereof,  to  be  by  him  sealed  up  and  directed  to 
the  secretary  of  the  state,  with  a  superscription  expressing 
the  purport  thereof;  and  the  said  town  clerk  shall  cause  such 
attested  copy  to  be  delivered  to  the  sheri5  of  the  county  in 
which  said  town  or  parish  shall  lie  thirty  days,  at  least,  before 
the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  or  to  the  secretary  of  the 
st^te  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  said  first  Wednesday  of 
January;  and  the  sheriff  of  each  county  or  his  deputy  shall 
deliver  all  such  certificates  by  him  received  into  the  secretary's 
office  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  first  Wednesday  of  Jan- 
uary. 

Art.  32.  And,  that  there  may  be  a  due  meeting  of  sena- 
tors on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  biennially,  the  gov- 
ernor and  a  majority  of  the  council  for  the  time  being  shall, 
as  soon  as  may  be,  examine  the  returned  copies  of  such  rec- 
ords, and,  fourteen  days  before  the  first  Wednesday  of  Janu- 
ary, he  shall  issue  his  summons  to  such  persons  as  appear  to 
be  chosen  senators  by  a  plurality  of  votes  to  attend  and  take 
their  seats  on  that  day:  provided,  nevertheless,  that,  for  the 
first  year,  the  said  returned  copies  shall  be  examined  by  the 
president  and  a  majority  of  the  council  then  in  office;  and  the 
said  president  shall,  in  like  manner,  notify  the  persons  elected 
to  attend  and  take  their  seats  accordingly. 


Appendix.  639 

Art.  33.  And  in  case  there  shall  not  appea.r  to  be  a  sen- 
ator elected  by  a  plurality  of  votes  for  any  district,  the 
deficiency  shall  be  supplied  in  the  following  manner,  viz.:  the 
members  of  the  house  of  representatives  and  such  senators  as 
shall  be  declared  elected  shall  take  the  names  of  the  two  per- 
sons having  the  highest  number  of  votes  in  the  district,  and 
out  of  them  shall  elect,  by  joint  ballot,  the  senator  wanted  for 
such  district;  and,  in  this  manner,  all  such  vacancies  shall  be 
filled  up  in  every  district  of  the  state;  all  vacancies  in  the 
senate  arising  by  death,  removal  out  of  the  state,  or  other- 
wise, except  from  failure  to  elect,  shall  be  filled  by  a  new 
election  by  the  people  of  the  district,  upon  the  requisition  of 
the  governor,  as  soon  as  may  be  after  such  vacancies  shall 
happen. 

Art.  34.  The  senate  shall  be  final  judges  of  the  elections, 
returns,  and  qualifications  of  their  own  members,  as  pointed 
out  in  this  constitution. 

Art.  35.  The  senate  shall  have  power  to  adjourn 
themselves,  provided  such  adjournment  do  not  exceed  two 
days  at  a  time:  provided,  nevertheless,  that,  whenever  they 
shall  sit  on  the  trial  of  any  impeachment,  they  may  adjourn 
to  such  time  and  place  as  they  may  think  proper,  although 
the  legislature  be  not  assembled  on  such  day  or  at  such 
place.  * 

Art.  36.  The  senate  shall  appoint  their  president  and 
other  officers,  and  determine  their  own  rules  of  proceedings. 
And  not  less  than  thirteen  members  of  the  senate  shall  make 
a  quorum  for  doing  business;  and,  when  less  than  sixteen 
senators  shall  be  present,  the  assent  of  ten,  at  least,  shall  be 
necessary  to  render  their  acts  and  proceedings  valid. 

Art.  37.  The  senate  shall  be  a  court,  with  full  power  and 
authority  to  hear,  try,  and  determine  all  impeachments  made 
by  the  house  of  representatives  against  any  officer  or  officers 
of  the  state,  for  bribery,  corruption,  malpractice,  or  malad- 
ministration in  office,  with  full  power  to  issue  summons  or 


640     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

compulsory  process  for  convening  witnesses  befre  them;  but, 
previous  to  the  trial  of  any  such  impeachment,  the  members 
of  the  senate  shall  respectively  be  sworn  truly  and  impartially 
to  try  and  determine  the  charge  in  question  according  to 
evidence.  And  every  officer  impeached  for  bribery,  corrup- 
tion, malpractice,  or  maladministration  in  office  shall  be 
served  with  an  attested  copy  of  the  impeachment  and  order 
of  senate  thereon,  with  such  citation  as  the  senate  may  direct, 
setting  forth  the  time  and  place  of  their  sitting  to  try  the  im- 
peachment; which  service  shall  be  made  by  the  sheriff  or  such 
other  swo.rn  officer  as  the  senate  may  appoint,  at  least  four- 
teen days  previous  to  the  time  of  trial;  and,  such  citation 
being  duly  served  and  returned,  the  senate  may  proceed  in  the 
hearing  of  the  impeachment,  giving  the  person  impeached, 
if  he  shall  appear,  full  liberty  of  producing  witnesses  and 
proofs  and  of  making  his  defence  by  himself  and  counsel; 
and  may  also,  upon  his  refusing  or  neglecting  to  appear,  hear 
the  proofs  in  support  of  the  impeachment,  and  render  judg- 
ment thereon,  his  nonappearance  notwithstanding;  and  such 
judgment  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  as  if  the  person 
impeached  had  appeared  and  pleaded  in  the  trial. 

Art.  38.  Their  judgment,  however,  shall  not  extend 
further  than  removal  from  office,  disqualification  to  hold  or 
enjoy  any  place  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit  under  this  state;  but 
the  party  so  convicted  shall,  nevertheless,  be  liable  to  indict- 
ment, trial,  judgment,  and  punishment,  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  land. 

Art.  39.  Whenever  the  governor  shall  be  impeached,  the 
(fhief  justice  of  the  supreme  judicial  court  shall,  during  the 
trial,  preside  in  the  senate,  but  have  no  vote  therein. 

EXECUTIVE  POWER. QOVERNOR. 

Art.  40.  There  shall  be  a  supreme  executive  magistrate, 
who  shall  be  styled  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  whose  title  shall  be  His  Excellency. 


Appendix.  641 

Art.  41.  The  governor  shall  be  chosen  biennially,  in  the 
month  of  November,  and  the  votes  for  governor  shall  be  re- 
ceived, sorted,  counted,  certified,  and  returned  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  votes  for  senators;  and  the  secretary  shall  lay 
the  same  before  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  to  be  by  them  examined ;  and, 
in  case  of  an  election  by  a  plurality  of  votes  through  the 
state,  the  choice  shall  be  by  them  declared* iind  published; 
and  the  qualifications  of  electors  of  the  governor  shall  be 
the  same  as  those  for  senators;  and,  if  no  person  shall  have 
a  plurality  of  votes,  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives 
shall,  by  a  joint  ballot,  elect  one  of  the  two  persons  having  the 
highest  number  of  votes,  who  shall  be  declared  governor. 
And  no  person  shall  be  eligible  to  this  office  unless,  at  the 
time  of  his  election,  he  shall  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  this 
state  for  seven  years  next  preceding,  and  unless  he  shall  be 
of  the  age  of  thirty  years. 

Art.  42.  In  cases  of  disagreement  between  the  two 
houses  with  regard  to  the  time  or  place  of  adjournment  or  pro- 
rogation, the  governor  with  advice  of  council,  shall  have  the 
right  to  adjourn  or  prorogue  the  general  court,  not  exceeding 
ninety  days  at  any  one  time,  as  he  may  determine  the  public 
good  may  require;  and  he  shall  dissolve  the  same  seven  days 
before  the  said  first  Wednesday  of  January.  And,  in  case 
of  any  infectious  distemper  prevailing  in  the  place  where  the 
said  court  at  any  time  is  to  onvene,  or  any  other  cause  where- 
by dangers  may  arise  to  the  health  or  lives  of  the  members 
from  their  attendance,  the  governor  may  direct  the  session 
to  be  holden  at  some  other,  the  most  convenient,  place  with- 
in the  state. 

Art.  43.  Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  both  houses 
of  the  general  court  shall,  before  it  becomes  a  law,  be  pre- 
sented to  the  governor;  if  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it,  but  if 
not,  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  house  in 
which  it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objections 
at  large  on  their  journal  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it.     If, 


642     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

after  such  reconsideration,  two  thirds  of  that  house  shall  agree 
to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  such  objec- 
tions, to  the  other  house,  by  which  it  shall  likewise  be  recon- 
sidered; and,  if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  that  house,  it  shall 
become  a  law.  But,  in  all  such  cases,  the  votes  of  both  hu-ases 
shall  be  determined  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the 
persons  voting  for  or  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  on  the 
journal  of  each  house  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be 
returned  by  the  governor  within  five  days  (Sundays  excepted) 
after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be  a 
law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it,  unless  the  legisla- 
ture, by  their  adjournment,  prevent  its  return,  in  which  case 
it  shall  not  be  a  law. 

Art.  44.  Every  resolve  shall  be  presented  to  the  governor, 
and,  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by 
him,  or  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  the 
senate  and  house  of  representatives,  according  to  the  rules 
and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a  bill. 

Art.  45.  All  judicial  officers,  the  attorney-general,  coro- 
ners, and  all  officers  of  the  navy  and  general  and  field  officers 
of  the  militia,  shall  be  nominated  and  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  council;  and  every  such  nomination  shall  be  made 
at  least  three  days  prior  to  such  appointment;  and  no  appoint- 
ment shall  take  place  unless  a  majority  of  the  council  agree 
thereto. 

Art.  46.  The  governor  and  council  shall  have  a  negative 
on  each  other,  both  in  the  nominations  and  appointments. 
Every  nomination  and  appointment  shall  be  signed  by  the 
governor  and  council,  and  every  negative  shall  be  also  signed 
by  the  governor  or  council  who  made  the  same. 

Art.  47.  The  captains  and  subalterns  in  the  respective 
regiments  shall  be  nominated  and  recommended  by  the  field 
officers  to  the  governor,  who  is  to  issue  their  coonmissions 
immediately  on  receipt  of  such  recommendation;  provided, 
that  no  person  shall  be  so  nominated  and  recommended  until 


Appendix.  643 

he  shall  have  been  examined  and  found  duly  qualified  by  an 
examining  board  appointed  by  the  governor. 

Art.  48.  Whenever  the  chair  of  the  governor  shall  become 
vacant,  by  reason  of  his  death,  absence  from  the  state,  or 
otherwise,  the  president  of  the  senate  shall,  during  such  va- 
cancy, have  and  exercise  all  the  powers  and  authorities,  which, 
by  this  constitution,  the  governor  is  vested  with  when  pr  r- 
sonally  present;  but,  when  the  president  of  the  senate  shall 
exercise  the  office  of  governor,  he  shall  not  hold  his  office  in 
the  senate.  Whenever  the  chair  both  of  the  governor  and 
of  the  president  of  the  senate  shall  become  vacant,  by  reason 
of  their  death,  absence  from  the  state,  or  otherwise,  the 
speaker  of  the  house  shall,  during  such  vacancies,  have  and 
exercise  all  the  powers  and  authorities  which,  by  this  consti- 
tution, the  governor  is  vested  with  when  personally  present; 
but  when  the  speaker  of  the  house  shall  exercise  the  c:T:ce  of 
ciovernor,  he  shall  not  hold  his  office  in  the  house. 

Art.  49.  The  governor,  with  advice  of  council,  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority,  in  recess  of  the  general  court,  to 
prorogue  the  same  from  time  to  time,  not  exceeding  ninety 
days  in  any  one  recess  of  said  court;  and,  during  the  session* 
of  said  court,  to  adjourn  or  prorogue  it  to  any  time  the  two 
houses  may  desire;  and  to  call  it  together  sooner  than  the  time 
to  which  it  may  be  adjourned  or  prorogued,  if  the  welfare  of 
the  state  should  require  the  same. 

Art.  50.  The  governor  of  this  state,  for  the  time  being, 
shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  and  all  the 
military  forces  of  the  state  by  sea  and  land;  and  shall  have 
full  power,  by  himself  or  by  any  chief  commander  or  other 
officer  or  officers,  from  time  to  time  to  train,  instruct,  exer- 
cise, and  govern  the  militia  and  navy;  and  for  the  special 
defense  and  safety  of  this  state,  to  assemble  in  martial  array 
and  put  in  warlike  posture  the  inhabitants  thereof,  and  to 
lead  and  conduct  them,  and  with  them  to  encounter,  repulse, 
repel,  resist,  and  pursue  by  force  of  arms,  as  well  by  sea  as 


644     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

by  land,  within  and  without  the  limits  of  this  state;  and  also 
to  kill,  slay,  destroy,  if  necessary,  and  conquer,  by  all  fitting 
ways,  enterprise,  and  means,  all  and  every  such  person  and 
persons  as  shall  at  any  time  hereafter,  in  a  hostile  manner, 
attempt  or  enterprise  the  destruction,  invasion,  detriment 
or  annoyance  of  this  state;  and  to  use  and  exercise  over  the 
army  and  navy  and  over  the  militia  in  actual  service  the  law 
martial,  in  time  of  war,  invasion,  and  also  in  rebellion  declared 
by  the  legislature  to  exist,  as  occasion  shall  necessarily  re- 
quire; and  surprise,  by  all  ways  and  means  whatsoever,  all 
and  every  such  person  or  persons,  with  their  ships,  arms,  am- 
munition, and  other  goods,  as  shall,  in  a  hostile  manner, 
invade,  or  attempt  the  invading,  conquering,  or  annoying  this 
state;  and,  in  fine,  the  governor  hereby  is  instructed  with  all 
other  powers  incident  to  the  office  of  captain-general  and 
comimander-in-chief  and  admiral,  to  be  exercised  agreeably  to 
the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
land,  provided,  that  the  governor  shall  not  at  any  time  here- 
after, by  virtue  of  any  power  by  this  constitution  'granted,  or 
hereafter  to  be  granted  to  him  by  the  legislature,  transport 
any  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  state  or  oblige  them  to  march 
out  of  the  limits  of  the  same  without  their  free  and  volun- 
tary consent  or  the  consent  of  the  general  court,  nor  grant 
commissions  for  exercising  the  law  martial  in  any  case  with- 
out the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council. 

Art.  51.  The  power  of  pardoning  offenses,  except  such  as 
persons  may  be  convicted  of  before  the  senate,  by  impeach- 
ment of  the  house,  shall  be  in  the  governor,  by  and  with 
the  advice  of  council;  but  no  charter  of  pardon,  granted  by  the 
governor,  with  advice  of  council,  before  conviction,  shall  avail 
the  party  pleading  the  same,  notwithstanding  any  general  or 
particular  expressions  contained  therein,  descriptive  of  the 
ofi'ense  or  offenses  intended  to  be  pardoned. 

Art.  52.  No  officer,  duly  commissioned  to  command  in 
the  militia,  shall  be  removed  from  his  office  but  by  the  ad- 


Appendix.  646 

dress  of  both  houses  to  the  governor  or  by  fair  trial  in  court 
martial  pursuant  to  the  laws  of  the  state  for  the  time  being. 

Art.  53.  The  commanding  officers  of  the  regiments 
shall  appoint  their  adjutants  and  quartermasters;  the  brig- 
adiers, their  brigade-majors;  the  major-generals,  their  aids; 
the  captains  and  subalterns,  their  non-commissioned  officers. 

Akt.  54.  The  division  of  the  militia  into  brigades,  regi- 
ments, and  companies,  made  in  pursuance  of  the  militia  laws 
now  in  force,  shall  be  considered  as  the  proper  division  of 
the  militia  of  this  state,  until  the  same  shall  be  altered  by 
some  future  law. 

Art.  55.  No  moneys  shall  be  issued  out  of  the  treasury 
of  this  state  and  disposed  of  (except  such  sujms  as  may  be 
appropriated  for  the  redemption  of  bills,  of  credit  or  treas- 
urer's notes,  or  for  the  payment  of  interest  arising  thereon) 
but  by  warrant  under  the  hand  of  the  governor  for  the  time 
being,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  for 
the  necessary  support  and  defense  of  this  state  and  for  the 
necessary  protection  and  preservation  of  the  inhabitants 
thereof,  agreeably  to  the  acts  and  resolves  of  the  general 
court. 

Art.  56.  All  public  boards,  the  commissary-general,  all 
superintending  officers  of  public  magazines  and  stores  belong- 
ing to  this  state,  and  all  commanding  officers  of  forts  and  gar- 
risons within  the  same  shall,  once  in  every  three  months, 
officially  and  without  requisition,  and  at  other  times  when  re- 
quired by  the  governor,  deliver  to  him  an  account  of  all 
goods,  stores,  nrovisions,  ammunition,  cannon  with  their  ap- 
pendages, and  all  s(mall  arms  with  their  accoutrements,  and 
all  other  public  property  under  their  care  respectively,  dis- 
tinguishing the  quantity  and  kind  of  each  as  particularly  as 
may  be,  together  with  the  condition  of  such  forts  and  garri- 
sons. And  the  commanding  officer  shall  exhibit  to  the  gov- 
ernor, when  required  by  him,  true  and  exact  plans  of  such 
forts,  and  of  the  land  and  sea,  or  harbor  or  harbors  adjacent. 


6^6     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Art.  57.  The  governor  and  council  shall  be  compensated 
for  their  services,  from  time  to  time,  by  such  grants  as  the 
general  court  shall  think  reasonable. 

Art.  58.  Permanent  and  honorable  salaries  shall  be  es- 
tablished by  law  for  the  justices  of  the  superior  court. 

COUNCIL. 

Art.  59.  There  shall  be  biennially  elected  by  ballot  five 
councilors,  for  advising  the  governor  in  the  executive  part 
of  government.  The  free  holders  and  other  inhabitants  in 
each  county,  qualified  to  vote  far  senators,  shall,  some  time  in 
the  month  of  ISTovember,  give  in  their  votes  for  one  councilor, 
which  votes  shall  be  received,  sorted,  counted,  certified,  and 
returned  to  the  secretary's  office,  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
votes  for  senators,  to  be  by  the  secretary  laid  before  the  sen- 
ate and  house  of  representatives  on  the  first  Wednesday  of 
January. 

Art.  60.  And  the  person  having  a  plurality  of  votes  in 
any  county  shall  be  considered  as  duly  elected  a  councilor; 
but,  if  no  person  shall  have  a  plurality  of  votes  in  any  county, 
the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  shall  take  the  names 
of  the  two  persons  who  have  the  highest  number  of  votes  in 
each  county  and  not  elected,  and  out  of  those  two  shall  elect, 
by  joint  ballot,  the  councilor  wanted  for  the  county;  and  the 
qualifications  for  councilors  shall  be  the  same  as  for  senator. 

Art.  61.  If  any  person  thus  chosen  a  councilor  shall  be 
elected  governor  or  member  of  either  branch  of  the  legisla- 
ture and  shall  accept  the  trust,  or  if  any  person  elected  a 
councilor  shall  refuse  to  accept  the  office,  or  in  case  of  the 
death,  resignation,  or  removal  of  any  councilor  out  of  the 
state,  the  governor  may  issue  a  precept  for  the  election  of  a  new 
councilor  in  that  county  where  such  vacancy  shall  happen; 
and  the  choice  shall  be  in  the  same  manner  as  before  directed; 
and  the  governor  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to  con- 


Appendix.  647 

vene  the  council,  from  time  to  time,  at  his  discretion;  and 
with  them  or  the  majority  of  them,  may  and  shall,  from  time 
tO'  time,  hold  a  council  for  ordering  and  directing  the  affairs 
of  the  state,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land. 

Art.  62.  The  me/mbers  of  the  council  may  be  impeached 
by  the  house  and  tried  by  the  senate  for  bribery,  corruption, 
malpractice,  or  maladministration. 

Aet.  63.  The  resolutions  and  advice  of  the  council 
shall  be  recorded  by  the  secretary  in  a  register,  and  signed 
by  all  the  members  present  agreeing  thereto;  and  this  rcord 
may  be  called  for  at  any  time  by  either  house  of  the  legis- 
lature; and  any  member  of  the  council  may  enter  his  opinion 
contrary  to  the  resolution  of  the  majority,  with  the  reasons 
for  such  opinion. 

Art.  64.  The  legislature  may,  if  the  public  good  shall 
hereafter  require  it,  divide  the  state  into  five  districts  as 
nearly  equal  as  may  be,  governing  themselves  by  the  number 
of  population,  each  district  to  elect  a  councilor;  and,  in  case 
of  such  division,  the  manner  of  the  choice  shall  be  conforma- 
ble to  the  present  mode  of  election  in  counties. 

Art.  65.  And,  whereas  the  elections  appointed  to  be  made 
by  this  constitution  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January  bien- 
nially, by  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature,  may  be  completed 
on  that  day,  the  said  elections  may  be  adjourned  from  day  to 
day  until  the  same  be  completed.  And  the  order  of  the  elec- 
tions shall  be  as  follows:  The  vacancies  in  the  senate,  if 
any,  shall  be  first  filled  up ;  the  governor  shall  then  be  elected, 
provided  there  shall  be  no  choice  of  him  by  the  people;  and 
afterwards,  the  two  houses  shall  proceed  to  fill  up  the  vacancy, 
if  any,  in  the  council. 

^SECRETTiART,  ^TREASURER,   CX)MMISSL1RY-GENERAL,  JFTC. 

Art.  66.  The  secretary,  treasurer,  and  commissary-gener- 
al shall  be  chosen  by  joint  ballot  of  the  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives, assembled  in  one  room. 


648     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Art.  67.  The  records  of  the  state  shall  be  kept  in  the 
office  of  the  secretary;  and  he  shall  attend  the  governor  and 
council,  the  senate  and  representatives,  in  person  or  by  dep- 
uty, as  they  may  require. 

Art.  68.  The  secretary  of  the  state  shall  at  all  times  have 
a  deputy,  to  be  by  him  appointed,  for  whose  conduct  in  office 
he  shall  be  responsible ;  and,  in  case  of  the  death,  removal,  or 
inability  of  the  secretary,  his  deputy  shall  exercise  all  the 
duties  of  the  office  of  secretary  of  this  state  until  another 
shall  be  appointed. 

Art.  69.  The  secretary,  before  he  enters  upon  the  busi- 
ness of  his  office,  shall  give  bond,  with  sufficient  sureties,  in 
a  reasonable  sum,  for  the  use  of  the  state,  for  the  punctual 
performance  of  his  trust. 

OOTIN"TT  TREASURERS,  ETC. 

Art.  70.  The  county  treasurers,  registers  of  probate,  so- 
licitors, sheriffs,  and  registers  of  deeds  shall  be  elected  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  several  towns  in  the  several  counties  in 
the  state,  according  to  the  method  now  practiced  and  the 
laws  of  the  state;  provided,  nevertheless,  the  legislature  shall 
have  authority  to  alter  the  manner  of  certifying  the  votes 
and  the  mode  of  electing  those  officers,  but  not  so  as  to  deprive 
the  people  of  the  right  they  now  have  of  electing  them. 

Art.  71.  And  the  legislature,  on  the  application  of  the 
major  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  any  county,  shall  have  au- 
thority to  divide  the  same  into  two  districts  for  registering 
deeds,  if  to  them  it  shall  appear  necessary,  each  district  to 
elect  a  register  of  deeds;  and,  before  they  enter  upon  the  busi- 
ness of  their  offices,  shall  be  respectively  sworn  faithfully  to 
discharge  the  duties  thereof,  and  shall  severally  give  bond, 
with  sufficient  sureties,  in  a  reasonable  sum,  for  the  use  of 
the  county,  for  the  punctual  performance  of  their  respective 
trusts. 


Appendix.  649 

JUDICIARY  POWER. 

Art.  72.  The  tenure  that  all  commissioned  officers  shall 
have  by  law  in  their  offices  shall  be  expressed  in  their  respec- 
tive commissions.  All  judicial  officers,  duly  appointed,  com- 
missioned, and  sworn,  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good 
behavior,  excepting  those  concerning  whom  there  is  a  differ- 
ent provision  made  in  this  constitution;  provided^  nevertheless, 
the  governor,  with  consent  of  council,  may  remove  them  upon 
the  address  of  both  houses  of  the  legilature. 

Art.  73.  Each  branch  of  the  legislature,  as  well  as  the 
governor  and  council,  shall  have  authority  to  require  the 
opinions  of  the  justices  of  the  superior  court  upon  important 
questions  of  law  and  upon  solemn  o.ccasions. 

Art.  74.  ■  In  order  that  the  people  may  not  suffer  from 
the  long  continuance  in  place  of  any  justice  of  the  peace  who 
shall  fail  in  discharging  the  important  duties  of  his  office 
with  ability  and  fidelity,  all  commissions  of  justices  of  the 
peace  shall  become  void  at  the  expiration  of  five  years  from 
their  respective  dates;  and  upon  the  expiration  of  any  com- 
mission, the  same  may,  if  necessary,  be  renewed,  or  another 
person  appointed,  as  shall  most  conduce  to  the  well  being  of 
the  state. 

Art.  75.  All  causes  of  marriage,  divorce,  and  alimony, 
and  all  appeals  from  the  respective  judges  of  probate,  shall 
be  heard  and  tried  by  the  superior  court,  until  the  legislature 
shall  by  law  make  other  provision. 

Art.  76.  The  general  court  are  empowered  to  give  to 
justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes,  when  the 
damages  demanded  shall  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars  and 
title  of  real  estate  is  not  concerned,  but  with  right  of  appeal  to 
either  party  to  some  other  court  and  the  general  court  are 
further  empowered  to  give  to  police  courts  original  jurisdic- 
tion to  try  and  determine,  subject  to  right  of  appeal  and  trial 
by  jury,' all  criminal  causes  wherein  the  punishment  is  less 
than  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison. 


850     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Art.  77.  No  person  shall  hold  the  office  of  judge  of  any 
court,  or  judge  of  probate,  or  sheriff  of  any  county,  after  he 
has  attained  the  age  of  seventy  years. 

Art.  78.  'No  judge  of  any  court  or  justice  of  the  peace 
shall  act  as  attorney,  or  be  of  counsel  to  any  party,  or  origi- 
nate any  civil  suit,  in  matters  which  shall  come  or  be  brought 
before  him  as  judge  or  justice  of  the  peace. 

Art.  79.  All  matters  relating  to  the  probate  of  wills  and 
granting  letters  of  administration  shall  be  exercised  by  the 
judges  of  probate  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  have 
directed  or  may  hereafter  direct;  and  the  judges  of  probate 
shall  hold  their  courts  at  such  place  or  places,  on  such  fixed 
days  as  the  conveniency  -of  the  people  may  require  and  the 
legislature  from  time  to  time  appoint. 

Art.  80.  No  judge  or  register  of  probate  shall  be  of  coun- 
sel, act  as  advocate,  or  receive  any  fees  as  advocate  or  counsel, 
in  any  probate  business  which  is  pending  or  may  be  brought 
into  any  court  of  probate  in  the  county  of  which  he  is  judge 
or  register. 

CLERKS  OF  courts. 

Art.  81.  The  judges  of  the  courts  (those  of  probate  ex- 
cepted) shall  appoint  their  respective  clerks,  to  hold  their 
ofRce  during  pleasure;  and  no  such  clerk  shall  act  as  an  at- 
torney or  be  of  counsel  in  any  cause  in  the  court  of  which  he 
is  a  clerk,  nor  shall  he  draw  any  writ  originating  a  civil  action. 

ENOOUItAOEMENT  OF  LITERATURE,  ETC. 

Art.  82.  Knowledge  and  learning  generally  diffused 
through  a  community  being  essential  to  the  preservation  of 
a  free, government,  and  spreading  the  opportunities  ana  ad 
vantages  of  education  through  the  various  parts  of  the  country 
being  highly  conducive  to  promote  this  end,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  legislators  and  magistrates,  in  all  future  periods 
of  this  government,  to  cherish  the  interest  of  literature  and 
the  sciences,  and  all  seminaries  and  public  schools;  to  encour- 


Appendix.  661 

age  private  and  public  institutions,  rewards,  and  immunities 
for  the  promotion  of  agriculture,  arts,  sciences,  commerce, 
trades,  manufactures,  and  natural  history,  of  the  country;  to 
countenance  and  inculcate  the  principles  of  humanity  and 
general  benevolence,  public  and  private  charity,  industry  and 
economy,  honesty  and  punctuality,  sincerity,  sobriety,  and  all 
social  aifections  and  generous  sentiments,  among  the  people; 
provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  money  raised  by  taxation  shall 
ever  be  granted  or  applied  for  the  use  of  the  schools  or  insti- 
tutions of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination.  Ftcc  and  fair 
competition  in  the  trades  and  industries  is  an  inherent  and 
essential  right  of  the  people  and  should  be  protected  against 
all  monopolies  and  conspiracies  which  tend  to  hinder  or  de- 
stroy it.  The  size  and  functions  of  all  corporations  should 
be  so  limited  and  regulated  as  to  prohibit  fictitious  capitaliza- 
tion, and  provision  should  be  made  for  the  supervision  and 
government  thereof: — ^Therefore,  all  just  power  possessed  by 
the  state  is  hereby  granted  to  the  general  court  to  enact  laws 
to  prevent  the  operations  within  the  state  of  all  persons  and 
associaions,  and  all  trusts  and  corporations,  foreign  and  domes- 
tic, and  the  officers  thereof,  who  endeavor  to  raise  the  price 
of  any  article  of  commerce  or  to  destroy  free  and  fair  compe- 
tition in  the  trades  and  industries  through  combination,  con- 
spiracy, monopoly,  or  any  other  unfair  means;  to  control  and 
regulate  the  acts  of  all  such  persons,  associations,  corpora- 
tions, trusts,  and  officials  doing  business  within  the  state;  to 
prevent  fictitious  capitalization;  and  to  authorize  civil  and 
criminal  proceedings  in  respect  to  all  the  wrongs  herein  de- 
clared against. 

O'ATHS      AND     SUBSORIPTION-S. EXCLUSION     FROM    OFFICES. — 

COMMISSIONS. — ^WRITS. — ^CONFIRMATION  OF  iLAWS. — HABEAS 
OORPTJiS. — THE  EiNACTINO  STYLE. — CONTIINFANCE  OF  OFFI- 
CERS.— PROVISION  FOR  A  FUTURE  REVISION  OF  THE  CONSTI- 
TUTION, ETC. 

Art.  83.     Any  person  chosen  governor,  councilo.r,  senator, 
or  representative,  military  or  civil  officer  (town  officers  ex- 


652     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

cepted),  accepting  the  trust,  shall,  before  he  proceeds  to  exe- 
cute the  duties  of  his  office,  make  and  subscribe  the  following 
declarations,  viz.: — 

I,  A  B,  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will  bear  faith  and  true 
allegiance  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  and  will  support 
the  constitution  thereof.     80  help  me  God. 

I,  A.  B,  do  solemnly  and  sincerely  swear  and  affirm  that  1 
will  faithfully  and  impartially  discharge  and  perform  all  the 

duties  incumbent  on  me  as ,  according  to  the  best  of 

my  abilities,  agreeably  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  this 
constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  So 
help  ine  God. 

Any  person  having  taken  and  subscribed  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance, and  the  same  being  filed  in  the  secretary's  office,  he 
shall  not  be  obliged  to  take  said  oath  again. 

Provided,  always,  when  any  person  chosen  or  appointed  as 
aforesaid  shall  be  of  the  denomination  called  Quakers,  or  shall 
be  scrupulous  of  swearing  and  shall  decline  taking  the  said 
oaths,  such  person  shall  take  and  subscribe  them,  omitting 
the  word  "swear,''  and  likewise  the  words  "So  help  me  God," 
subjoining  instead  thereof,  "Tliis  I  do  under  the  pains  and 
penalties  of  perjury." 

Art.  84.  And  the  oaths  or  affirmations  shall  be  taken  and 
subscribed  by  the  governor,  before  the  president  of  the  senate, 
in  presence  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature ;  and  by  the  sen- 
ators and  representatives  first  elected  under  this  constitution, 
as  altered  and  amended,  before  the  president  of  the  state  and 
a  majority  of  the  council  then  in  office,  and  forever  afterward 
before  the  governor  and  council  for  the  time  being;  and  by  all 
other  officers,  before  such  persons  and  in  such  manner  as  the 
legislature  shall  from  time  to  time  appoint. 

Art.  85.  All  commissions  shall  be  in  the  name  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  signed  by  the  governor,  and  attested 
by  the  secretary  or  his  deputy,  and  shall  have  the  great  seal 
of  the  state  affixed  thereto. 


Appendix.  653 

Art.  86.  All  writs  issuing  out  of  the  clerk's  office,  in  any 
of  the  courts  of  law,  shall  be  in  the  name  of  the  state  of  Xew 
Hampshire,  shall  be  under  the  seal  of  the  court  whence  they 
issue,  and  bear  teste  of  the  chief,  first  or  senior  justice  of  the 
court:  but,  when  such  justice  shall  be  interested,  then  the 
writ  shall  bear  teste  of  some  other  justice  of  the  court,  to 
which  the  same  shall  be  returnable;  and  be  signed  by  the 
clerk  of  such  court. 

Art.  87.  All  indictments,  presentments,  and  information 
shall  conclude,  "against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  state." 

Art.  88.  The  estate  of  such  persons  as  may  destroy  their 
own  lives  shall  not  for  that  offense  be  forfeited,  but  descend 
or  ascend  in  the  same  manner  as  if  such  persons  had  died  in  a 
natural  way.  Nor  shall  any  article  which  shall  accidentally 
occasion  the  death  of  any  person  be  henceforth  deemed  a 
deodand,  or  in  any  wise  forfeited  on  account  of  such  misfor- 
tune. 

Art.  89.  All  the  laws  which  have  heretofore  been 
adopted,  used,  and  approved  in  the  province,  colony,  or  state 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  usually  practiced  on  in  the  courts  of 
law,  shall  remain  and  be  in  full  force  until  altered  and  re- 
pealed by  the  legislature,  such  parts  thereof  only  excepted  as 
are  repugnant  to  the  rights  and  liberties  contained  in  this 
constitution;  provided,  that  nothing  herein  contained,  when 
compared  with  the  twenty-third  article  in  the  bill  of  rights, 
shall  be  construed  to  affect  the  laws  already  made  respecting 
the  persons  or  estates  of  absentees. 

Art.  90.  The  privilege  and  benefit  of  the  habeas  corpus 
shall  be  enjoyed  in  this  state  in  the  most  free,  easy,  cheap, 
expeditious,  and  ample  manner,  and  shall  not  be  suspended 
by  the  legislature  except  upon  the  most  urgent  and  pressing 
occasions,  and  for  a  time  not  exceeding  three  months. 

Art.  91.  The  enacting  style,  in  making  and  passing  acts, 
statutes,  and  laws,  shall  be,  Be  it  enacted  hy  the  senate  and 
house  of  representatives  in  general  court  convened. 


Qbi     JouKNAL  OF  Constitutional  Convention. 

Art.  92.  No  governor  or  judge  of  the  supreme  judicial 
court  shall  hold  any  office  or  place  under  the  authority  of  this 
state,  except  such  as  by  this  constitution  they  are  admitted  to 
hold,  saving  that  the  judges  of  the  said  court  may  hold  the 
offices  of  justices  of  the  peace  throughout  the  state;  noj*  shall 
they  hold  any  place  or  office  or  receive  any  pension  or  salary 
from  any  other  state,  government,  or  power  whatever. 

Art.  93.  No  person  shall  be  capable  of  exercising  at  the 
same  time  more  than  one  of  the  following  offices  within  this 
state,  viz:  judge  of  probate,  sheriff,  register  of  deeds;  and 
never  more  than  two  offices  of  profit,  which  imay  be  held  by 
appointment  of  the  governor,  or  governor  and  council,  or  sen- 
ate and  house  of  representatives,  or  superior  or  inferior 
courts,  military  offices  and  offices  of  justices  of  the  peace 
excepted. 

Art.  94.  No  person  holding  the  office  of  judge  of  any 
court  (except  special  judges),  secretary,  treasurer  of  the  state, 
attorney-general,  commissary-general,  military  officers  receiv- 
ing pay  from  the  continent  or  this  state  (excepting  officers 
of  the  militia  occasionally  called  forth  on  an  emergency),  reg- 
ister of  deeds,  sheriff,  or  officers  of  the  customs,  including 
naval  officers,  collectors  of  excise  and  state  and  continental 
taxes  hereafter  appointed,  and  not  having  settled  their  ac- 
counts with  the  respective  officers  with  whom  it  is  their  duty 
to  settle  such  accounts,  members  of  congress,  or  any  person 
holding  any  office  under  the  United  States,  shall  at  the  same 
time  hold  the  office  of  governor,  or  have  a  seat  in  the  senate 
or  house  of  representatives  or  council;  but  his  being  chosen 
and  appointed  to  and  accepting  the  same  shall  operate  as  a 
resignation  of  their  seat  in  the  chair,  senate,  or  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, or  council,  and  the  place  so  vacated  shall  be  filled 
up.  No  member  of  the  council  shall  have  a  seat  in  the  sen- 
ate or  house  of  representatives. 

Art.  95.  No  person  shall  ever  be  admitted  to  hold  a  seat 
in  the  legislature,  or  any  office  of  trust  or  importance  under 
this  government,  who,  in  the  due  course  of  law,  has  been  con- 


Appendix.  655 

victed  of  bribery  or  corruption  in  obtaining  an  election  or 
appointment. 

Art.  96.  In  all  cases  where  sums  of  money  are  mentioned 
in  this  constitution,  the  value  thereof  shall  be  computed  in 
silver  at  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  per  ounce. 

Art.  97.  To  the  end  that  there  may  be  no  failure  of  jus- 
tice or  danger  to  the  state  by  the  alterations  and  amendments 
made  in  the  constitution,  the  general  court  is  hereby  fully  au- 
thorized and  directed  to  fix  the  time  when  the  alterations  and 
amendments  shall  take  effect,  and  miake  the  necessary  arrange- 
ments accordingly.. 

Art.  98.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  selectmen  and  as- 
sessors of  the  several  towns  and  places  in  this  state,  in  warn- 
ing the  first  annual  meetings  for  the  choice  of  senators,  after 
the  expiration  of  seven  years  from  the  adoption  of  this  consti- 
tution as  amended,  to  insert  expressly  in  the  warrant  this  pur- 
pose among  the  others  for  the  meeting,  to  wit:  to  take  the 
sense  of  the  qualifiied  voters  on  the  subject  of  a  revision  of 
the  constitution;  and,  the  meeting  being  warned  accordingly, 
and  not  otherwise,  the  moderator  shall  take  the  sense  of  the 
qualified  voters  present  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  revision;  and 
a  return  of  the  number  of  votes  for  and  against  such  necessity 
shall  be  anade  by  the  clerks,  sealed  up  and  directed  to  the 
general  court  at  their  then  next  session ;  and  if  it  shall  appear 
to  the  general  court  by  such  return  that  the  sense  of  the 
people  of  the  state  has  been  taken,  and  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  in  the  state  present  and 
voting  at  said  meetings,  there  is  a  necessity  for  a  revision 
of  the  constitution,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  court 
to  call  a  convention  for  that  purpose;  otherwise  the  general 
court  shall  direct  the  sense  of  the  people  to  be  taken,  and 
then  proceed  in  the  manner  before  mentioned;  the  delegates 
to  be  chosen  in  the  same  manner  and  proportioned  as  the 
representatives  to  the  general  court;  provided,  that  no  altera- 
tion shall  be  made  in  this  constitution  before  the  same  shall 


656     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

be  laid  before  the  towns  and  unincorporated  places  and  ap- 
proved by  two  thirds  of  the  qualified  voters  present  and  vot- 
ing on  the  subject. 

Art.  99.  And  the  same  method  of  taking  the  sense  of  the 
people  as  to  a  revision  of  the  constitution,  and  calling  a  con- 
vention for  that  purpose,  shall  be  observed  afterward,  at  the 
expiration  of  every  seven  years. 

Art.  100.  This  farm  of  government  shall  be  enrolled  on 
parchment  and  deposited  in  the  secretary's  office,  and  be  a 
part  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  printed  copies  thereof  shall 
be  prefixed  to  the  books  containing  the  laws  of  this  state  in 
all  future  editions  thereof. 


ERRATA. 


Page    6,   line   5    from    bottom,    read   Frederick   Pickering-   for 

"Frederick  H.  Pickering." 

Page  13,  line  12,  read  John  P.  Lampron  for  "James  P.  Lamp- 

ron." 
Page  14,  line  4,  read  Willard  H.  Pierce  for  "William  H.  Pierce." 
Page   17,  line   8,   read  Johannes  J.   Haarvei   for  "Jonathan  J. 

Haarvei." 
Page  149,  line  6,  read  Constitution  for  "Convention." 
Page  200,  line  23,  read  Parker  of  Merrimack  for  "Barker  of 

Merrimack." 

Page  481,  line  9,  read  question  for  "motion." 

Page  547,  line  4  from  bottom,  read  holder  for  "builder." 

Page  557,  line  19,  read  recommendation  for  "report." 


.    INDEX. 


I.  Index  of  Names  of  Places. 

II.  Index  of  Names  of  Persons. 

III.  Index  of  Subjects. 

IV.  Index  of  Resolutions. 


I. 

INDEX  OF  NAMES  OF  PLACES. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  OF  PLACES. 


Acworth 15,    202,    376,  431 

Albany  9 

Alexandria     15 

Allenstown 9,   377,  430 

Alstead    14 

Alton 8,    201,    376,    430 

Amherst    11 

Andover 9,  21,  84,  125,  195,  200,  275,  304 

318,  319,  321,  377,  404,  430,  491 

Antrim    11 

Ashland     15 

Atkinson     6 

Auburn     6 

Bamstead 8,    201,    376,  432 

Barrington 7,    201,    376,  430 

Bartlett 9,   201,    376,  430 

Bath    15,  337 

Bedford     il 

Belmont 8,  21,  84,  127,  200,  377,  414,  430 

Bennington 11,   85,  432 

Benton 15,  85,  201,  378,  433 

Berlin 17,  20,  51,  84,  85,  87,  89,  90,  177,  202,  203 

241,  299,  324,  334,  348,  375,  377,  379,  386,  392,  394 
397,  431,  433,  459,  460,  476,  490,  524,  531,  538,  539 

Betlehem     15,  273 

Boscawen 9,  83,   94,  409 

Bow 9,  36,   37 

Bradford   9 

Brentwood    6 

Bristol    •. 15 

Brookfield    9 

Brookline 11,    83 

Campton    15 

663 


664     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Canaan 15,  21,  77,  85,  135,  378,  424,  433 

Candia  6,  377,  431 

Canterbury 9,  20,  200,  377,  432 

Carroll 17 

Centre  Harbor 8,  377,  430,  432 

Charlestown 15,  85,  202,  337,  379,  421,  431,  476,  539 

Chatham    9 

Chester    6 

Chesterfield   14 

Chichester 9,  85,  200,  377,  432 

Claremont 15,  19,  21,  65,  66,  75,  76,  83,  84,  86,  87,  93,  94,  98,  99 

107,  108,  109,  114,  178,  202,  203,  376,  379,  390 

391,  398,  400,  401,  407,  430,  431,  475,  480,  545 

Clarksville    17 

Colebrook 17,  21,  84,  201,  378,  400,  433,  460,  461,  466,  495 

Columbia 17 

Concord 3,  9,  10,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  25,  26,  27,  31,  32 

33,  36,  37,  45,  52,  59,  60,  61,  67,  69,  71,  73,  74 

78,  80,  83,  84,  85,  86,  90,  97,  106,  114,  115,  116 

118,  151,  165,  175,  176,  178,  193,  194,  195,  197 

200,  201,  202,  203,  204,  205,  211,  213,  216,  222 

224,  225,  226,  267,  270,  271,  272,  273,  277,  278 

279,  287,  300,  307,  311,  312,  313,  315,  320,  323 

335,  336,  338,  339,  341,  345,  352,  364,  375,  376 

377,  382,  388,  389,  390,  408,  415,  418,  419,  427 

430,  432,  433,  435,  436,  437,  453,  456,  457,  458 

459,  460,  474,  480,  481,  485,  492,  493,  494,  495 

497,  508,  511,  513,  515,  519,  533,  534,  539,  540 
541,  542,  549,  550,  551,  553,  556,  557 

Conway 9,  21,   83,  334 

Cornish  15,  111 

Croydon 15,  200,  378,  432 

Dalton 17,   202,  377 

Danbury. . .  .10,  125,  197,  203,  259,  278,  398,  400,  407,  411,  471,  475,  489 

Danville 6,    201,  377 

Deerfield 6,  201,  205,  430 

Deering  11 

Derry    6,   85 

Dorchester   15 

Dover 3,  4,  7,  20,  21,  67,  72,  83,  84,  85 

151,152,  199,  200,  225,  226,  311,  314,  377 

430,  431,  433,  437,  438,  443,  455,  462,  479 

Dublin 14,   202,   378,  432 


Index.  665 

Dummer    17,    85 

Dunbarton 9,    138,   262,  441 

Durham 7,    18,   83 

East   Kingston 6 

Easton 15,  84,  378,  433 

Eaton     9 

Effingham     9 

Ellsworth    15 

Enfield   15 

Epping 6,    81,   83,    378 

Epsom    10,    84 

Errol 17 

Exeter 3,  6,  18,  20,  21,  44,  58,  65,  69,  83,  84,  99,  106 

199,  202,  216,  231,  300,  322,  326,  338,  340,  341,  377 
378,  384,  409,  410,  430,  431,  450,  482,  485,  536,  539 

Farmington 7,  8,  201,  377,  430 

Fitzwilliam 5,    14,   44,   83 

Francestown    11,   85 

Franconia 16 

Franklin 4,  10,  34,  37,  81,  84,  118,  144,  151 

197,  201,  273,  278,  312,  375,  376,  383 
408,  430,  432,  436,  442,  477,  495,  499 

Freedom    9 

Fremont 4,  6,  22,  85,  203,  539 

Gilford 8,   85,   200,  377,  432 

Gilmanton  8,  85 

Gilsum   14 

Goffstown 11,  64,  83,  292,  470,  543 

Gorham 17,   20,   83,  379 

Goshen   15,  330 

Grafton 16,  201,  378,  431 

Grantham     15 

Greenfield     11 

Greenland     f> 

Greenville 11,   201,   432 

Groton 16,  201,  378,  433 

Hampstead    6 

Hampton    6 

Hampton    Falls 6 

Hancock    11 


666     Journal  of  Constitutional   Convention. 

Hanover 16,  66,  109,  110,  273,  502 

Harrisville    14,   20 

Hart's    Location 9 

Haverhill 3,  16,  20,  21,  25,  37,  53,  54,  60,  61,  64,  85,  118 

144,  194,  195,  196,  197,  198,  201,  224,  270,  274 
276,  277,  313,  321,  322,  323,  324,  326,  328,  330 
338,  358,  376,  389,  391,  403,  404,  410,  411,  430 
431,  444,  481,  506,  522,  527,  539,  542 

Hebron    16,   201,  378 

Henniker  10,  85 

Hill     10,  433 

Hillsborough  11,  85,  535 

Hinsdale 5,    14,   21,   200,  378 

Holderness   16 

Hollis 11,  85,  224,  273,  476 

Hooksett 10,  201,  376,  431 

Hopkinton  10,  85 

Hudson 11,  200,  377,   432 

Jackson  '. 9 

Jaffrey 14,  27,  30,  50,  151,  152,  165,  169,  171,  173,  174,  179 

194,  195,  196,  197,  199,  200,  238,  328,  342,  343,  351 

367,  370,  375,  378,  395,  406,  432,  461,  472,  528,  543 

Jefferson 17,  202,  378,  433 

Keene 5,  14,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  57,  83,  84,  176 

200,  277,  319,  320,  321,  323,  327,  330,  331,  332 
333,  336,  378,  386,  432,  443,  447,  452,  477,  539 

Kensington 6,  84,  105,  165,  '262,  321,  327,  350,  553 

Kingston 6,  199,  377,  431 

Laconia 4,  8,  20,  21,  22,  36,  37,  83,  84,  128,  142,  200 

221,  244,  360,  377,  430,  432,  440,  443,  505,  511 

Lancaster 5,  17,  21,  39,  40,  83,  84,  218,  274,  276,  341,  342 

375,  379,  460,  470,  471,   496,  522,  527,  535 

Landaff 16,  54,  83,  91,  92,  143,  182,  202,  217,  224,  226 

227,  267,  279,  290,  371,  376,  391,  425,  431,  453,  460 

467,  470,  471,  473,  475,  481,  482,  487,  489,  498,  532 

Langdon 15,  42,  43,  121,  124,  167,  331 

Lebanon 5,  16,  55,  83,  124,  273,  453,  461,  532 

Lee    8 

Lempster 4,  15,  202,  376,  431 

Lincoln    16 

Lisbon 16,  84,  179,  205',  272,  489,  537 


Index.  667 

Litchfield     11,  201 

Littleton 5,  16,  20,  21,  84,  202,  376,  378,  433,  477 

Loudon     10 

Londonderry 6,  84,  193,  199,  201,  309,  314 

480,  490,  545,  550,  551,  552 

Lynian 16,   201,   378,  431 

Lyme 16,    202,   378,  433 

Lyndeborough    11,  85 

Madbury 8,    201,   376,  431 

Madison 9,  201,  334,  376,  430,  539 

Manchester 4,  5,  11,  12,  18,  19,  20,  21,  25,  32,  33,  35,  36,  37 

38,  39,  40,  41,  56,  58,  60,  63,  65,  70,  72,  73,  74 
80,  83,  84,  85,  86,  90  ,98,  102,  114,  116,  117 
136,  197,  200,  201,  202,  216,  218,  220,  221,  222 
223,  224,  225,  227,  231,  267,  268,  272,  274,  275 
276,  277,  278,  283,  311,  312,  315,  316,  320,  331 
336,  375,  376,  377,  378,  386,  389,  392,  395,  401 
402,  406,  407,  408,  431,  432,  433,  439,  442,  444 
445,  446,  449,  452,  457,  475,  476,  477,  491,  495 
500,  509,  511,  519,  529,  530,  531,  538,  539,  552 
553,  554,  557 

Marlborough 14,  84,  200,  378,  432 

Marlow    14,   84,  430 

Mason    13 

Meredith 8,37 

Merrimack 13,  200,   378,  432 

Middleton 8,  65 

Milan    17 

Milford 5,  13,  43,  44,  49,  52,  64,  78,  79,  84,  85,  178 

197,  198,  199,  202,  273,  332,  376,  431 
446,  447,   456,   457,    477,  499,   508,  510 

Milton    8 

Monroe  16,21 

Mont  Vernon 13,  376,  432 

Moultonborough 9,  20,  83,  200,  37-7,  430,  432,  476 

Nashua 5,  13,  18,  20,  21,  22,  25,  34,  45,  56,  61,  64,  80 

81,  82,  83,  84,  85,  97,  136,  148,  150,  191,  192 
194,  196,  200,  202,  274,  275,  277,  318,  319 
328,  330,  331,  367,  375,  376,  378,  379,  385 
385,  387,  400,  404,  408,  428,  430,  431,  43^ 
433,    454,    474,    477,    481,    520,    542 


668     Journal  of  Constitutional    Convention. 

Nelson    14 

New  Boston 13,   200,  431 

Newbury 10,   85,  337,  411,  413 

Newcastle    6 

New  Durham 8,  200,  377,  431 

Newfields 6,  143,  151,  197,  203,  300,  337,  555 

New  Hampton   9 

Newington    6,  106 

New  Ipswich 13,  48,  54,  72,  135,  180,  202,  287,  363,  376,  431 

New  London 10,  85,  348,  376,  431 

Newmarket 6,  20,  58,  76,  84,  104,  105,  170,  171,  174,  194 

202,  296,  32.1,  322,  323,  330,  431,  523,  534 

Newport 4,  6,  15,  20,  21,  22,  51,  53,  72,  80,  83,  141,  142 

184,  197,  198,  199,  200,  202,  283,  294,  325,  335 
336,  373,  375,  378,  379,  390,  391,  392,  407,  430 
432,  484,  485,  518,  519,  530,  533,  534,  538,  540 

Newton    6 

Northfield 10,   200,   377,  432,  477 

North    Hampton 6 

Northumberland    17 

Northwood 7,  85,  134,  322,  330,  331,  336,  529 

Nottingham 7,  201,  376,  431 

Orange  16 

Orf  ord    16 

Ossipee 4,    9,    84,  200 

Pelham 13,  197,  200,  203,  378,  431,  457,  554 

Pembroke 4,  10,  21,  83,  88,  200,  ^31,  337,  377 

401,  432,  477,  478,  479,  499,  509 

Peterborough 13,  84,  140,  172,  174,  200,  202,  242 

296,   369,  375,  378,  431,  463 

Piermont   16,  277 

Pittsburg    17 

Pittsfield 10,  188,  191,  192,  200,  201,  284,  296 

358,  376,  377,  431,  432,  471,  494 

Plainfield 15,  150,  151,  274 

Plaistow   7,  377,  431 

Plymouth    16,  378 

Portsmouth 4,  7,  83,  84,  95,  97,  101,  106,  116,  202,  203 

204,  213,  216,  218,  220,  313,  314,  315,  320,  321,  323 
330,  331,  375,  376,  377,  384,  430,  431,  457,  474,  495 

■Randolph    17 


Index.  669 

Raymond 7,  201,  377,  431 

Richmond   14 

Rindge     14 

Rochester 4,  8,  83,  237,  273,  377,  432 

Rollinsford    8,   376,  430 

Roxbury 14,   200,   378,  432 

Rumney 16,  22,  136,  174 

Rye    7,  201,  431 

Salem 7,  84,  431 

Salisbury 11,  84,  201,  378,  431 

Sanbornton 9,   433,  476 

Sandown    7,  22 

Sandwich 4,  9,  21,  84,  310 

Seabrook     7 

Sharon 13,  202,  376,  431 

Shelburne    17 

Somersworth 8,  20,  21,  84,  376,  432 

South  Hampton 7,  199,  377,  431 

Spring-field     15 

Stark  17,  85 

Stewartstown    17 

Stoddard 14,  85,  378,   430,  432 

Strafford     8 

Stratford 17,  84,  201,  373 

Stratham     7 

Sullivan   14 

Sunapee 15,  202,  376,  431 

Surry 14,  41,  43,  58,  84,  87,  99,  327,  332,  379,  499 

Sutton 11,  86,  200,  377,  432 

Swanzey 14,  200,  258,  378,  432 

I 

Tamworth    9 

Temple    13 

Thornton 16,  201,  433 

Tilton 4,  5,  9,  32,  33,  34,  45,  50,  52,  53,  67,  69,  SO 

83,  95,  115,  225,  280,  283,  460,  463,  466,  550 

Troy 14,   85,   378,  432 

Tuftonborough 9,  76,  84,  103,  527 

Unity 15,   20,   84 

Wakefield 9,    200,  4^2 

Walpole 5,  14,  21,  45,  200,  378,  432 


670     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Warner 11,    83 

Warren 16,  83,  95,  171,  293,  333,  359,  401,  402 

Washington     15 

Waterville 16,  201,  378,  431 

Weare 13,    200,  432 

Webster    11 

Wentworth 16,  20,  84,  136,  201,  378,  433 

Westmoreland 14,    200,   378,  431 

Whitefield 5,  17,  83,  437 

Wilmot    11 

Wilton    ; 13,    83 

Winchester    14 

Windham    7,    151 

Windsor    13 

Wolfeboro 9,  20,  52,  78,  79,  84,  85,  108,  139,  145 

146,   147,   196,  201,  221,  260,  272,  300 

305,  322,  353,  368,   376,   430,   522,  544 

Woodstock 16,   202,    203,   376,  431 


II. 

INDEX  OF  NAMES  OF  PEESONS. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  OF  PEESONS. 


Abbott,  Sewall  W 9,  84,  200,  368,  377,  430 

Ames,  Samuel  H 16,  202,  277 

Anderson,  Henry  W 6,  20,  202,  377,  430 

Andrews,  Charles  0 13,  200,  378,  431 

Andrews,  Ralza  E 9,  201,  376,  430 

Avery,    Vernie    H 15,  433 

Bailey,  James  H 5,  16,  21,  84,  202,  376,  433 

Bailey,  Murvin  A 15,  202,  376,  431 

Baker,  Henry  M 9,  36,  37 

Baldwin,  George  W 17,  202,  377 

Bales,  George  E 13,  83,  200,  378,  432 

Ball,  John  P 14,  202,  376,  431 

Bancroft,  Charles  P 10,  83,  200,  377,  430 

Barney,  Charles  0 15.  21,  77,  85,  135,  378,  424,  433 

Barney,  George  S 16,  201,  378,  431 

Bartlett,   John    F 22,  510 

Barton,  Jesse  M v 4,  6,  15,  20,  51,  53,  72,  80,  83 

141,  142,  184,  197,  198,  199,  202,  283,  294,  325 
335,  336,  373,  375,  378,  390,  391,  394,  407,  430 
432,  484,  485,  518,  519,  530,  533,  534,   538,  540 

Batehelder,  Charles  H 7,  84,  101,  331,  377,  384,  430 

Batchelder,  Jonathan   H 6,  201,  203,  430 

Batehelder,  Perley  B 7,  201,  376,  431 

Bean,  Charles  H 10,  81,  201,  376,  408,  432,  442 

Bean,  Edwin  C 8,  21,  84,  127,  200,  377,  414,  430 

Beaudoin,  Aurelle 8,  376 

Bennett,  Arthur  E 17,  202,  431 

Benson,  William  H 6,  201,  376,  430 

Berry,  William  W 9,   200,  377,  432 

Berry,  Zanello  D 8,  200,  377,  431 

Beverstock,    Oscar    D 22,  510 

Biron,  Theophile  G 12,  85,  200,  378,  432 

Blake,  Amos  J 5,  14,  44,  83,  200,  378,  431 

Booth,  Burk 15,  200,  330,  378,  432 

) 

673 


674     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Boutwell,  Arthur  J 10,  85,  201,  338,  376,  431 

Bowker,  Mitehell  H 5,  17,  83,  202,  378,  433,  437 

Boynton,  Harry  E 7,  95,  97,  201,  204,  213,  216,  218 

220,  313,  314,  315,  320,  321,  323 
330,  375,  377,  431,  457,  474,  495 

Broderiek,  James  A 5,  12,  21,  63,  201,  202,  223,  224,  283 

376,  402,  406,  431,  457,  495,  552 

Brooks,.  Hartley  L 15,  82,  202,  378,  431 

Brown,  Charles  B 11,  200,  377,  432 

Brown,  Daniel  J 11,  201,  432 

Brown,  Elisha    R 7 

Brown,  Fred  H 8,  20,  84,  376 

Brown,  Henry  C 11,  200,  377,  432 

Brown,  William  G 7,  201,  377,  431 

Brummer,  George  Conrad 16,  202,  376,  431 

Burkett,  Ray  E 22,  25,  510,  511 

Burnham,  Bradford 10,  138,  200,  262,  377,  432,  441 

Busiel,  John  T 8,  128,  142,  200,  244,  360,  377,  432 

Buxton,  Willis  G 9,  83,  94,  201,  376,  409,  433 

Cain,  Orville  E 14,  20,  83,  378,  386,  477 

Carey,  Bernard  W 22,  510 

Carlton,  Thomas  J 15,  201,   378,  431 

Carr,  Robert  0 16,  201,  378,  433 

Carroll,  Edward  H 11,  83,  200,  377,  432 

Carter,  William  S 5,  16,  55,  83,  124,  201,  273 

378,  433,  454,  461,  532 

C^vanaugh,  John  B 12,  37,  38,  39,  58,  74,  83,  200 

275,  276,  277,  331,  378,  395,  407 
408,  431,  444,  445,  449,  529,  540 

Chandler,  Hazen 9,   200,  377,  432 

Chatel,  Joseph  P 12,  85,  201,  378,  432 

Chevrette,  Joseph 12,  202,  376,  432 

Clancy,  Frank  B 13,  202,  376,  431 

Clark,  Allan  Chester 19,  510,  557 

Clark,  Edward  Everett 10,  200,  377,  432 

Clark,  Edward  M 16,  20,  85,  201,  376,  430,  431 

Clark,  Frank   H 7,   201,   376,  430 

Clark,  Martin  V.  B 14,  200,  378,  432 

Cleaveland,  Fred  C 5,  17,  21,  84,  202,  377,  431 

Clement,  Frank  C 16,  83,  95,  171,  202,  293,  333 

359,  376,  401,  402,  431 

Clifford,  Thomas  F 4,  10,  20,  34,  84,  118,  144,  151,  197,  200,  273 

278,  312,  375,  377,  383,  432,  436,  477,  495,  499 


Index.  675 

Clough,  Don  C 17,  202,  378,  433 

Clough,  Henry  L 9,  20,  200,  377,  43^ 

Cochran,  John  E 7,  151,  377,  431 

Colburn,  Willie  W 13,  200,  378,  431 

Collins,  Clarence   M 6,   201,    377,  431 

Collins,  Leonard  W 6,  199,  377,  431 

Comings,  Fenno  B 15,  111,  202,  376,  431 

Conner,  Frank  J 13,  376,  432 

Connor,  John  J 12,   85,   116,  376 

Connor,    Martin 12,   201,   376,  432 

Connors,  Daniel  W 5,  14,  21,  45,  202,  376 

Corning,  Charles  K 10,  17,  31,  32,  69,  84,  86,  200,  377,  430 

Cote,  Louis  P 8,  376,  432 

Craig,  Rockwell  F 14,  84,  200,  ST5,  430,  431 

Crawford,  John  G 11,  32,  33,  35,  36,  56,  60,  70,  84,  85,  98 

102,  117,  201,  -216,  220,  222,  377,  442,  491 
Curry,  Eobert  P 16,  202,  376,  431 

Davis,  Albert    P 22,510 

Davis,  Edgar  W 15,  200,   378,  432 

Davis,  William  E 13,  48,  54,  72,  135,  180,  202,  287,  363,  376,  431 

Dean,  Harry  G 10,  125,  197,  201,  203,  259,  278,  376 

398,  400,  407,  411,  430,  471,  475,  4S9 

DeGross,  John  H 15,  202,  337,  431 

DeMerritt,  Albert 7,  18,  83,  377 

Demers,  Odilon 12,  85,  378,  432 

Dionne,  Charles,  Jr 13,  202,  376,  432 

Donigan,  Joseph  A 10,  85,  200,  337,  377,  411,  413,  432 

Donnelly,  John  J 12,  202,  376,  433 

Dow,  James  R 6,  199,  377,  431 

Drake,  Albert  H 7,  201,  377,  431 

Drake,  Benjamin  F 4,  8,  21,  200,  377,  430 

Drake,  Nathaniel  S 10,  188,  191,  192,  201,  284 

296,  358,  376,  431,  471,  494 

Drew,  Irving  W 17,  375,  378,  433 

Ducharme,  Joseph 13,  202,  376,  431 

Dudley,  Jason  H 17,  21,  84,  201 

Duncan,  George  H 14,  27,  30,  50,  151,  152,  165,  169,  171 

173,  174,  179,  194,  195,  196,  197,  199 
202,  238,  328,  342,  343,  367,  370,  375 
376,  395,  406,  431,  461,  472,  528,  .543 

Durgin,  Woodbury  W 8,  201,  377.  430 

Dutton,  Edwin  F , 11,  376,  432 

Eagan,  William  B 12,  201,  37C,  431 


676     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Eastman,  Edwin  G 3,  6,  18,  58,  65,  69,  84,  199 

300,  322,  326,  338,  340,  341 
377,  384,  430,  431,  450,  536 

Eastman,  Eugene  B 7 

Eastman,  Richard  T 16,  201,  378,  433 

Eaton,  Albert  B 13,  202,  376,  431 

Eldredge,  Hiram  W. .  ^ 11,376 

Emerson,  Frank  W 6,  199,  377,  431 

Entwistle,  William  T 7,  84,  116,  202,  377,  431 

Estes,  Simeon  M 8,  377,  430 

Evans,  Alfred  E 17,  20,  83,  201,  379,  433 

Fairbanks,  Henry  B 12,  200,  378,  433 

Farrand,  George  E .9,  19,  85,  201,  376,  430 

Faulkner,  Robert'  E 14,  84,  202,  376,  43,1 

Fellows,  William  B 5,  9,  32  33,  34,  45,  50,  52,  53,  67 

69,  80,  83,  95,  115,  200,  225,  280 
283,  377,  432,  460,  463,  466,  550 

Fessenden,  Orville  D 11,  83,  201,  342,  376,  431,  518 

Fifield,  Holmes  B 9,  200,  334,  376,  432 

Fisher,  David  0 14,  376,  431 

Flanagan,  Michael  P 8,  376,  432 

Flanders,  Charles  S 11,  200,  377,  432,  535 

Fletcher,  Charles  W 14,  200,  378,  432 

Flint,  William  W 10,  25,  26,  27,  197,  200,  203,  432 

Folsom,  Ernest  B 7,  84,  201,  376,  433,  437,  443,  462 

Foote,  Charles  D 7,  201,  376,  431 

Ford,  Charles  H 16,  201,  378,  431 

Foss,  Alonzo  Melvin 7,  84,  200,  377,  431 

JFowler,  George  W 4,  10,  20,  83,  88,  200,  231,  377 

401,  432,  477,  478,  479,  499,  509 

Fowler,  Henry  T 10,  377,  432 

French,  James  E 9,  20,  83,  200,  377,  430,  432,  476 

French,  Robert  A 13,  81,  82,  200,  378,  431,  477 

Fuller,  Arthur  O 6,  21,  44,  83,  199,  216,231 

409,  410,  430,  482,  485,  540 
Fuller,  Levi  A. 14,  84,  200,  378,  432 

Gaffney,  Frederick  J 1"',  148,  376,  477 

Gagne,   Francois   X 12,  378 

Gagnon,    Joseph    O H 

Gallagher,  Edward  J 10,  201,  376,  430 

Gammons,  Ellis  G 15,  201,  378 

Gardner,  Rufiis  P 10,  200,  377,  430 


Index.  677 

Garland,  Benjamin  C 17,  202,  37G,  431 

G-arland,  Rev.  Charles  C 22,  37,  80,  86,  203,  273,  277 

408,  477,  510,  544,  533 

Garmon,  William  G 12,   200,  378 

Geoffrion,  Euclide  F 12,  202,  376,  431 

Gibson,  James  L 9,  21,  83,  200 

Gilchrist,  Daniel  R 16,  21,  201,  378,  433 

Gilmore,  James  A 13,  202,  432 

Glynn,  James  L 12,  201,  431 

Goodhue,  Fred  E 11,  201,  376,  432 

Goodhue,  George    22,  510 

Goodnow,  Leslie  H 14,  200,  378,  432 

Gordon,  George  C 7,  199,  377,  431 

Goss,  Herbert  1 17,  51,  84,  87,  201,  334,  378 

392,  394,  397,  433,  476,  524 

Gowen,  George  E 7,  201,  376,  430 

Grant,  David  A 16,  202,  378,  433 

Grant,  Gardner 8,    376,  430 

Greeley,  Harry  P 13,  83,  200,  378,  384,  387,  432 

Green,  Clarence  H 16,  201,  378,  431 

Green,  George  H 16,  202,  203,  376,  431 

Griffin,  Edward  C 6,  201,   377,  431 

Griffin,  Patrick  E 5,  21,  44 

Guptill,  Ernest  L 7,  84,  106,  199,  377,  431 

Haarvei,  Johannes  J 17,  202,  377,  657 

Hadley,  George  P 11,  64,  83,  200,  292,  377,  431,  470,  543 

Haines,  John  N 8,  21,  84,  200,  377,  432 

Hall,  Daniel 3,  7,  67,  72,  83,  151,  200,  377,  430,  438,  443,  479 

Hall,  Lester  Wallace 7,  84,  431 

Hamblett,  Charles  J 13,  84,  378,  433 

Hancock,  Frank  M 17,  202,  377,  431 

Hanson,  W^liam  F 8,  65,  200,  377,  431 

Hardy,   Willis  D 11,    377,  432 

Harriman,    Willis    A ; 17,  378 

Harvell,  Horace  T 11,  200,  377,  432 

Haselton,  George  I 12,  84,  378,  432 

Haslet,  George  W 11,  85,  377,  432 

Hatch,  Edward  J 10,  201,  376,  432 

Hatton,  William  H 16,  201,  37S,  433 

Hayden,  Daniel  W.. 11,  85,  201,  224,  273,  376,  432,  476 

Hayes,  Henry  H 17,  302 

Hayford,  John  E ■ 6,  201,  377,  431 

Hazeltine,  Frank  L 16,  201,  433 


678     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Healey,  George  C 6,   199,  377,  430 

Hebert,   Winfred  D 12,  431 

Henneberry,  John 10,  201,  225,  270,  376,  43a 

Henry,    George   E 16 

Herbert,  Henry  W 16,  136,  174,  201,  378,  433 

Hett,  John  August 7,  377,  431 

Hill,  Fred   P 7,    377,  431 

Hill,  Howard  F 10,  19,  85,  200,  377,  408,  419,  432 

Hixson,  Melvin  E 15,  378,  432 

Hobbs,  Charles  W 13,  197,  200,  203,  378,  431,  457,  554 

Hobbs,  Frank  P 9,  20,  52,  78,  80,  85,  108,  139,  145 

146,   147,   196,  201,   221,  260,  272,  300 
305,   322,   338,   353,   376,  430,   522,  544 

Holden,  Charles  A 22,  510 

HoUis,  Abijah 10,  84,  201,  376,  430- 

Hollis,  Allen 10,  48,  84,  90,  201,  203,  263 

267,  271,   272,  278,  279,   300,  307,  311 
313,   315,   336,   338,   339,    352,   376,  497 

Holmes,  Harrie  A 6,  201,  376,  431 

Home,    Augustus    P 22,  510 

Howard,  William  H 15,  200,  37S,  432: 

Howe,  Gardner  S 5,  14,  21,  200,  378 

Howe,  Thomas  F 12,  201,  376,  431 

Hoyt,  Edward  E 9,  201,  334,  376,   430,  539 

Hoyt,  Orrin  A 8,  200,  377,  432 

Hubbard,  Osmon  H 14,  202,  378,  431 

Huckins,  George  F 9,  200,  377,  432' 

Hurd,  Clarence  1 7,  21,  84,  200,  377,  431 

Hurd,  Henry  N 15,  19,  21,  65,  66,  75,  84,  93,  94,  99  109,  114 

178,  202,  203,   379,  390,  401,  407,  431,  545 

Ingalls,  William  D 6,  199,  376,  431 

Jewell,  Charlie   D 16,   201,   378,  433 

Jewell,  Frank  M 7,  199,  377,  431 

Johnson,  John  W 15,  21,  200,  378,  432 

Johnson,  Thomas  F 17,  84,  201,  378,  400,  433,  460,  461,  466,  495 

Jones,  Eben  W 13,  202,  378,  431 

Jones,  Edwin  F 11,  18,  19,  74,  116,  200,  218,  221,  222,  225 

226,  227,  231,  267,  268,  272,  278,  279 

300,   311,   312,   377,  432,  452,    500,  509 

Jones,  Seth  W 10,  201,  376,  432 

Keniston,  Bavis  B 16,  201,  378,  433 


Index.  679 

Keyes,  Arthur  L 5,  13,  84,  200,  378,  431 

Kimball,  Henry  A 10,  151,  200,  377,  432 

Kittredge,  Everett 9,  200,   377,  432 

Knapp,  Perley 17,  201,  378,  433 

Knights,  John  J 6,  199,  377,  431 

Knox,  Ulysses  S 7,  200,  377,  431 

Lake,    Harry    F li> 

Lambert,  Elliot  C 11,  19,  74,  83,  200,  336,  375,  377,  433,  475,  476 

Lamprey,  Robert 9,  76,  84,  103,  201,  376,  430,  527 

Lampron,  John  P 13,  432,  657 

Lane,  Horace  M 6,  199,  377,  431 

Lang,  Prank  P 17,  201,  378 

Lawrence,  William  E 16,  201,  277,  433 

Leclerc,  Frank  J 12,  202,  376,  432,  530,  53S 

Leclerc,  Treffle 8,    376,  432 

Leddy,  John 6,  81,  83,  201,  378,  430 

Leighton,  George  E 6,  143,  151,  197,  199,  203 

300,  337,  377,  430,  555 

Letourneau,  George 8,  376,  43^ 

Lewis,  Fred  D 15,  201,  273 

Libbey,  Eugene  G 11,  201,  378,  432 

Lindquist,  Ludwig 12,  201,  376,  431 

Little,  Ellon  S 10,  200,  377,  433 

Loverlng,  John  W 7,  199,  377,  430 

Lyford,  James  O, 10,  18,  19,  21,  25,  33,  36,  45,  52,  59,  60,  61 

65,  67,  71,  73,  83,  97,  98,  99,  106,  118 
165,  193,  194,  195,  197,  200,  202,  211 
213,  222,  224,  226,  279,  311,  312,  313 
320,  323,  335,  336,  341,  345,  375,  377 
382,  389,  390,  391,  418,  430,  433,  435 
436,  437,  453,  456,  457,  459,  474,  480 
481,  508,  511,  513,  515,  519,  533,  534 
539,  540,  541,  549,  550,  551,  556,  557 

Madden,  Joseph 5,  14,  18,  21,  57,  83,  319 

320,  321,  323,  327,  330,  331,  332 
333,  336,  378,  432,  447,  452,  539 

Madigan,  Thomas  H.,  Jr 19 

Magan,  Peter  J 12,  201,  376,  431 

Main,  John 7,  85,  376,  430 

Marcotte,  Isidore  P 8,  273,  377,  432 

Marden,  John  E 10,  201,  376,  430 

Marden,  Samuel  L 13,   200,  431 


680     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Marston,  Cyrus  F 6,  199,  377 

Martel,  Horace 12,  202,  432 

Martin,  Nathaniel  E 3,  10,  83,  175,  176,  178,  200,  377,  388 

389,  427,  432,  458,  460,  485,  539 

Mathews,  Ned  A 15,  201,  378,  433,  477 

McDonough,  Joseph  M 12,  83,  201,  431 

McDuff ee,  Charles  H 8,  201,  376,  430 

McDuffee,  George   H 6,   377,  431 

McLane,  Clinton  A 13,  85,  378,  431,  477,  510 

Meader,  Walter  S 4,  8,  200,  237,  377,  430 

Merrill,  Henry  M 15,  378,  433 

Mitchell,  Fred  N 10,  201,   376,  431 

Mitchell,  John  L 4,  7,  83,  201,  377,  431 

Mitchell,  John  M 3,  10,  74,  78,  84,  114,  115,  116,  200,  204 

205,  213,  216,  277,  387,  364,  377,  415,  432 
492,  493,  494,  495,  498,  541,  542,  551,  553 

Moore,  Albert  E 16,  201,  378 

Moore,  Frank  H 8,  201,  376,  432 

Moquin,  Arthur  J 12,  202,  432 

Moran,  Thomas  F 13,  84,  376,  431 

Moran,  William   H 7,    376,  431 

Morey,  Charles  H 9,  377,  432 

Morrill,  Arthur  P 10,  85,  200,  377,  430 

Morrill,  James  R 8,  85,  200,  377,  432 

Morrill,  Leonard  B 8,  377,  430,  432 

Morris,  George  F 17,  39,  40,  83,  201,  218,  274,  276,  341,  342,  373 

379,  431,  460,  470,  471,  496,  525,  527,  535 

Morse,  Almus  W 12,  202,  376,  432 

Morse,  Byron  L 13,  200,  432 

Morse,  Charles  A 6,  20,  58,  76,  84,  104,  105,  106 

170,  171,  174,  194,  196,  202,  297 
321,  322,  323,  330,  431,  523,  534 

Moulton,  Darius 15,  202,  433 

Mower,  Will  J 14,  200,  351,  378,  432 

Neal,  George  G 7,  85,  200,  377,  431 

Neal,  Guy  S 15,  202,  376,  431 

Nelson,  Joseph  E 13,  202,   376,  431 

Newell,  Hiram  F 14,  41,  42,  59,  84,  87,  99 

202,  327,  332,  379,  431,  499 

Newton,  Charles  A 15,  20,  84,  202,  376,  431 

Nims,  David  B 14,  200,  378,  432 

Nims,  Elmer  T 14,  200,  378,  431 

Norwood,  Charles  M 14,  19,  83,  200,  277,  378,  431 


Index.  681 

I^oyes,  John  B IT,  202,  431 

Oakes,  Eri  C 16,  20,  84,  179,  201,  205,  272,  378,  431,  489,  537 

Otis,  Herbert  K 7 

Parker,  Edward  E 13,  84,  202,  376,  431 

Parker,  Everett  E 13,  200,  378,  432,  657 

Parker,  Hiram 4,    15,  202,   376,  431 

Parker,  Lebina  H 15,  85,  201,  378,  433 

Parsons,  George  C 8,  85,  200,  338,  377,  430 

Patch,  Edson  H 11,  85,  200,  377,  431 

Pattee,  Jesse  B 11,  72,  73,  83,  200,  377,  431,  531 

Pattee,  John  C 17,  84,  201,  378,  431 

Phaneuf ,  Horace  H 13,  202,  378,  432 

Philbrick,  Carl  B 15,  202,  378,  431 

Pickering,  Frederick 6,  106,  107,  657 

Pierce,  Arthur  J 11,  85,  432 

Pierce,  Willard  H 14,  202,  378,  432,  657 

Pike,  William  T 17,  85,  202,  377,  433 

Pillsbury,  Hobart 12,  40,  41,  201,  315,  316 

320,  378,  432,  519,r539 

Pillsbury,  Rosecrans  W 6,  84,  193,  199,  201,  309,  314 

480,  490,  545,  550,  551,  552 

Pollard,  Edward  S 9,  201,  377,  432 

Potter,  Judson  A 17,  202,  377,  431 

Povall,  James  T 9,  201,  432 

Prescott,  True  E 8,  20,  84,  377,  432 

Prentiss,  John  W 14,  37S 

Pressey,  Charles    1 6,  377 

Pressler,  Adolf  W 14,  84,  378,  432,  443 

Preston,  Frank  B 4,  8,  201,  376,  430 

Pridham,  James  W 6,  430 

Quimby,  Emerson  A. 15,  f^"86,  87,  202,  376,  390,  391,  398,  400 

<3uimby,  Frank  P 10,  19,  20,  22,  200,  224,  377,  432,  540 

Eainville,  Joseph  A 10,  337,  377 

Eancour,  Frank 13,  202,  376 

Bichards,  Albert  L 8,  200,  377,  430 

Richardson,  Edward  M 8,  201,  377,  432 

Richer,   Narcisse 11,  200,   377,  432 

Roberts,  Fred  B 8,  201,  376,  430 

Robertson,  Henry  H 9,  201,  376,  432 

Robinson,  Ernest  A 15,  379,  432 


682     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Rod«lsperger,  Herman 12,  85,  202,  376,  431 

Rossiter,  George  P 15,  84,  200,  378,  430,  432 

Rowe,  Stewart  E 6,  84,  105,  165,  199,  262 

321,  327,  350,  377,  431,  553 

Ruffle,  James  E 14,  202,  378,  432 

Runnells,  Frederick  D 13,  84,  200,  378,  433 

Rushlow,    Fred 37,  510 

Ryan,  Patrick  J 12,  201,  376,  432 

Saltmarsh,  George  H 8,  83,  511 

Sanborn,  Eugene  D 22,  510 

Sanborn,  Joseph  B 4,  6,  85,  199,  203,  338,  377,  430,  539 

Sanborn,  Lizzie  H 22,  37,  510 

Sanders,  Charles  G 8,  201,  376,  431 

Sargent,  Albert   B 10,   376,  432 

Saunders,  Amos 11,  201 

Sawyer,  Harvey   C 11,  201,   376,  431 

Sayers,  James  A 11,  200,  377 

Scammon,  John 6,  21,  83,  99,  106,  199,  378,  431 

Schiller,  Rudolph 12,  85,  202,  376,  431 

Seeton,  Alvin  P 11,  200,  377,  431 

Shaw,  John 11,   84,   201,   378,  431 

Shaw,  John  L.  T 9,  85,  200,  377,  432 

Sheehan,   Thomas   F 12,    201,  376 

Sheehe,  Edward  M 17,  202,  377,  433 

Shea,  John  F 13,  202,  376,  431 

Shepard,  Frederick  J 6,  85,  199,  377,  431 

Sherry,  George  H 4,  7,  376,  430 

Shirley,  Arthur  F 9,  200,  377,  432 

Shirley,  John    M 37,  511 

Shontell,  Frederick  W 12,  84,  201,  376,  431,  554,  557 

Shute,  Arthur  N 16,  201,  378,  431 

Shute,  Calvin  T 16,  20,  84,  136,  201,  378,  433 

Simpson,  James 17,  201,  378,  431 

Sise,  Frederick  M 7,  203,  377,  431 

Slade,  David  W 14,  202,  376,  431 

Smith,  Charles   H 9,    377,  430 

Smith,  Ezra  M 13,  84,  140,  172,  174,  200,  242 

296,  369,  375,  378,  431,  463 

Smith,  George  M 13,  202,  376,  431 

Smith,  Henry  A 17,  89,  90,  202,  377,  431.  539 

Smith,  Morris  P ^'^^  ^'^^ 

Smyth,  Patrick  J 17,  202,  203,  324,  379,  433,  531 

Snell,  Louis  H 8,  377,  431 


Index.  683 

Soper,  George  D 11,  200,  377,  432 

Spalding-,  Henry  E 14,  85,  378,  430,  432 

Spaulding,  Frank  A 14,  200,  378,  432 

Spooner,  Henry 16,  201,  376,  433 

Stevens,  Raymond  B 16,  55,  83,  91,  92,  143,  182,  202,  217,  224 

226,  227,  267,  279,  290,  342,  371,  376 
391,  425,  431,  453,  460,  467,  470,  471 
473,  474,  475,  481,  582,  487,  489,  498,  533 

Stevens,  Robert   1 12,   200,  378,  431 

Stewart,  John   T 17,  377,  433 

Stone,  George  W 9,  21,  84,  125,  195,  200,  275,  304 

318,  319,  321,  377,  404,  430,  491 

Stone,  Melvin  T 14,  85,  378,  43? 

Storrs,  Edward  P 16,  201,  273,  378,  435 

Sturtevant,  Charles  C. 14,  176,  202,  376 

Sullivan,  Edmund 17,  20,  84,  202,  241,  377,  433,  459,  460,  490 

Tait,   Joseph 11,   200,   377,  431 

Tarbell,  Walter  S 11,  85,  201,  376,  432 

Temple,  Edalbert  J 14,  202,  376,  431 

Theriault,    George 13,   202,  376 

Thyng,  Herbert  M 9,  200,  377,  432 

Tibbetts,  Clarence  1 10,  200,  377,  432 

Tilton,  Charles  E 4,  9,  200,  377,  432 

Tinkham,  Charles  C 12,  202,  376,  431 

Tolles,  Willard  C .' 13,  20,  202,  376,  432 

Towle,  William  H 7,  85,  134,  201,  322,  330,  331,  336,  376,  431,  529 

Tracy,  Charles  A 15,  150,  151,  202,  274,  431 

Trickey,  Nelson  1 9,  200,  377,  432 

Tripp,  Warren 10,  84,  377,  432 

True,  Reuben  C 16,  201,  273,  378,  433 

Turcotte,   Armelle 12,   202,   376,  431 

Twitchell,   Almon 14,   208,   376,  431 

Updyke,  Frank  A. 16,  66,  109,  110,  202,  376,  433,  502 

Upham,  James  Duncan 15,  83,  98,  107,  108,  202 

376,  390,  400,  431,  475,  480 

Van Vliet,  Henry  J 12,  21,  202,  376,  431 

Veazey,  William  D 8,  21,  84,  200,  377,  432 

Veazie,  George  A 16,  201,  378,  433,  477 

Wadleigh,  Fred  T .13,  43,  44,  49,  52,  64,  78,  79,  85 

178,   197,   198,   199,   202,   273,   332,  33S 
376,   431,  446,   447,  456,  457,   499,  508 


684     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Wadleigh,  Milton  B 11,  86,  200,  377,  432 

Wallace,  Albert 8,  83,  200,   377,  432 

Ware,  Clarence  H 11,  201,  376,  432 

Warren,  George  H 11,  20,  83,  200,  377,  390,  401,  432 

Wason,  Edward  H 5,  18,  20,  21,  22,  25,  34,  35,  56 

61,  64,  80,  82,  83,  85,  97,  136,  150,  151 
191,  192,  194,  200,  274,  275,  277,  318,  319,  328 
330,  331,  367,  375,  378,  379,  382,  385,  400,  404 
408,  428,  430,  431,  454,  474,  481,  518,  520,  542 

Waterman,  Thomas  P 16,  201,  273,  378,  431 

Watson,  Arthur  L 17,  201,  378,  433 

Webster,  John  E 6,  199,  377,  431 

Weeks,  Frank 4,  9,  84,  200,  377,  432 

Weeks,  Frederick  P 16,  378 

Wellman,  Jerry  P 14,  200,  378,  432 

Wellman,  Justin  0 10,  85,  348,  376,  43] 

Wells,  Eugene  A 15,  201,  378,  433 

Wentworth,  Paul 4,  9,  21,  84,  200,  310,  377,  432 

Wesley,  John  H 7,  85 

Whipple,  Henry  C 15,  202,  378,  433 

Whitcher,  William  F 3,  16,  21,  25,  37,  53,  54,  60,  61,  64,  SiS 

118,  144,  194,  195,  196,  197,  198,  201 
224,  270,  274,  276,  313,  314,  321,  322 
323,  324,  326,  328,  330,  338,  358,  378 
389,  391,  403,  404,  406,  410,  411,  430 
431,  444,  481,  506,  522,  527,  539,  542 

Whitcomb,  George  E 14,  200,  258,  378,  432 

Whitcomb,  Henry  F 17,  202,  377 

Whittemore,  Arthur  G .7,  20,  67,  83,  152,  199,  200,  225 

226,  311,  314,  377,  430,  455,  518 

Wiggin,  George  A 9,  200,  377,  432 

Wight,  Adam  W 17,  85,  202,  338,  377,  431 

Wilkins,  Charles  A 10,  85,  201,  376,  432 

Willey,  George  H 6,  199,  377,  431 

Willson,  Charles  W.  T 8,  201,  377,  430 

Wilson,  Allan  M 11,  84,  200,  377,  433 

Winch,  Charles 15,  42,  43,  121,  124,  167,  200,  331,  378,  432 

Winn,  Thomas  J. 14,   20,  376,  431 

Wolf,  Robert  B 17,  85,  177,  202,  299,  348 

375,   377,  386,  431,   531,  538 

Woodbury,  Arthur  K 13,  200,  378,  432 

Woodbury,  Edward  B 12,  84,  200,   378,  432 

Woodbury,  Frank   E 10,    376,  430 

Wormwood,  James  L 9,  201,  377,  432 


Index.  686 

Wright,  Robert  M 9,   201,  377,  433,  476 

Young-,  Charles  A 15,  84,   378,  433 

Young,  Edwin  J 10,  200,  377,  432,  477 

Young,  Harrie  M 4,  12,  25,  37,  65,  80,  83,  84,  86,  90,  114 

116,  136,  197,  200,  274,  277,  378,  386 
389,  433,  439,  446,  477,  510,  511,  553 

Young,  Oscar  C 15,  85,  202,  337,  338,  379,  421,  431,  476,  539 

Young,  Oscar  L 8,  20,  21,  36,  84,  200,  221,  377,  432,  440,  443,  505 


111. 

INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Absence,  leave  of 65,  81,  86,  151,  203,  273,  277,  337,  408,  476 

Adjournment 475,    553,  557 

Amendments  submitted 545 

Appropriation  bills,  approval  of. 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  31.) 

Assistant  secretary,  compensation  of 510 

elected  ' 22 

bow^    chosen 19 

thanks  to 554 

Assistant  stenographer,  compensation   of 510 

elected     22 

qualifies 25 

Assistant  warden  of  coat  room,  compensation   of 510 

elected    22 

Attorney  General,  election  of 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  8.) 

Attorney  General,  opinion  of  on  mileage  of  members 476 

Auditor,  election  of 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  8) 
Betterment  Laws. 

(See  index  to   Resolutions  Nos.  32,  52) 

Chaplain,  compensation  of 510 

elected    ■. 22 

how    chosen .       19 

resolution  of  thanks  to 553 

Cities,  charter  of 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  56) 

Colby's  Manual,  secretary  of  state  to  procure 25 

thanks  to  Prof.  James  F.  Colby  for 55.1 

Commissioners,  county,  how  chosen. 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  20,  40) 

Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  appointed 83 

Contested   Seat,  appointed 21 

report  of 44 

687 


688     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Committee  on  Credentials,  appointed  4 

report    of 6 

roll    of    members    reported    by, 

conclusive   152 

Finance,  appointed   85 

how    appointed 83 

report  of 510 

Future  Mode,  appointed    84 

Journal,  appointed     477 

how    appointed 446 

report    of 511 

Judicial  Department,   appointed 84 

Legislative  Department  appointed     83 

granted      extension 

of    time 481 

Mileage,  appoint^     85 

how    appointed 83 

report   of 476 

Permanent  Organiziation,  appointed     20 

how    appointed 19 

report    of 22 

Rules,  appointed    20 

how  appointed 20 

report    of 22 

Time  and  Mode,  appointed    84 

report    of 545 

Woman's  Suffrage,  appointed  85 

how  appointed 82 

Committees,  Standing  and  Special,  appointed 83 

Constitution,  Secretary  of  State  to  procure  copies  of 58 

Contested  seat  of  Daniel  W.  Connors,  petition    5 

referred     21 

report   of  committee 

on     14 

Corporation  salaries  arid  dividends,  legislature  may  fix 

(See    index   to    Resolution    No.    38) 
Council,  to  abolish  Governor's 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  53,  57) 
Councilor  Districts,  how  formed. 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  44) 
Councilors,  plurality  election  of 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  28,  34,  36) 

Debate,  limitation  of 278 


Index.  689 

Dividends,  corporation  salaries  and,  legislature  may  fix 
(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  38) 

Doorkeepers,  compensation   of 510 

elected   22 

how    chosen 19 

"Evangelical,"  to  be   stricken  from  Constitution 
(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  24) 
Female  Suffrage 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  7) 
Future  (Mode  of  Amending  Constitution 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  3,  4,  11,  16) 

Gravel,  presentation  of  to  President 116 

Governor,  may   veto   separate   appropriations 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  31) 
plurality  election  of 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  28,  34,  36,  54) 
House  of  Representatives,  representation  in 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  1,  13,  14,  15,  18,  22,  26,  27,  35,  60) 
Initiative  and  Referendum 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  4,  47) 

Journal,  committee  on,  appointed    477 

how    appointed 446 

secretary   to   print 511 

reading  of,  dispensed  with 37,  80,  86,  151 

203,  273,   277,  337,  408,  477 

report   of  committee  on 511 

temporary  secretary  to  furnish  that  of  1902 5 

Mileage  of  members 476 

Monitor,  Concord  Evening,  Secretary  of  State  to  buy 20 

National  flag,  custodian  to  raise,  during  Convention 272 

New  Hampshire  Direct  Legislation  League,  use   of  Repre- 
sentatives' Hall 37 

Official  stenographer,  compensation    of 510 

elected    22 

how    chosen 19 

qualifies    37 

Pages,  appointed     37 

compensation    of 510 

how    appointed 20 

Patriot,  Concord  Daily,  Secretary  of  State  to  buy 20 

F'ensions 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  23) 
Plurality  vote 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  28,  34,  36,  55) 


690     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Poll  tax  of  female  voters 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  49) 
Police  Courts,  jurisdiction  of 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  12) 
Police  Courts,  justices  of,  tenure  of  office 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  9) 

President,  chosen    18 

presentation  of  gavel    to IIG 

punch    bowl    to 555 

thanks    to 542 

to  appoint  pages 20 

"Proportional  and  reasonable,"  to  strike  from  part  of  Con- 
stitution relating  to  taxation 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.   50) 
"Proportional,"  to  strike  from  part  of  Constitution  relating 
to  taxation 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  50) 
"Protestant,"  to  be  stricken  from  Constitution 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  24) 
Recall  of  elective  officers 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  29) 
Register  of  Deeds,  how  chosen 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  20,  30,  42) 
Registers  of  Probate,  how  chosen 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  20,  30,  41) 

Reporters,  thanks  to 554 

Resolutions,  to  be  printed 34 

Roll-call  In  legislature 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  48) 

Roll  of  Convention     8 

what    conclusive 152 

Secretary  of  State  to  procure  copies  of      .'3 

Rules  of  Convention    22 

temporary    20 

secretary  to  procure  printed  copies..       2* 

Seats,  certain  members  to  select 21 

how    drawn 21 

drawing    of 25 

Secretary,  compensation  of 510 

elected    ^ 10 

Governor  and  Council  to  audit  account  of 512 

qualifies     19 

thanks   to 554 

to  procure  printed  rolls  of  Contention 58 


Index.  691 

Secretary,  to  procure   printed   rules 25 

to  request  custodian  to  raise  flag 272 

to  supervise  publication  of  Journal 511 

Secretary  of  State,  election  of 

(See  index  to  Kesolution  No.  8) 

to  procure    Colby's    Manual 25 

to  procure    daily    papers 20 

to  procure  copies  of  Constitution 58 

Senate,  compensation  of   officers  and   members 
(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  27) 
representation  in 
(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  2,  17,  19,  25,  26,  43,  60,  61) 
Senators,  plurality  election  of 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  28,  34,  36,  55) 

Sergeant-at-Arms,  compensation    of 510 

elected    22 

how    chosen 19 

thanks    to 554 

Sheriffs,  how   chosen 

(See  index   to  Resolutions   No.   20,    30) 
Solicitors,  how  chosen 

(See  index  to  Resolutions   Nos.  21,  30) 

Standing  Committees,   to  report  when 407 

Taxation  of  incomes 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  33,  37,  39,  51,  58) 
intangibles 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  5,  33,  39,  58) 
inheritances 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  6) 
public   service  corporations 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  59) 
savings  bank  deposits 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  58) 
wild  and  forest  lands   • 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  5,  33,  39,  58) 

Tellers    appointed 203 

Temporary  chairman   elected 3 

Temporary  secretary,  compensation  of 510 

elected     4 

to  furnish  copies  Journal  of  1902 5 

Treasurer,  County,  how  chosen 

(See  index  to  Resolutions  Nos.  20,  30,  40) 
Treasurer,  State,  election  of 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  8) 


(592     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Union,  Manchester,  Secretary  of  State  to  buy 20 

Veto  power.  Governor  may  veto  separate  appropriations 

(See  index  to  Kesolution  No.  31) 
Voters,  disqualification    of    for    treason,    violation    election 
laws,  etc. 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  46) 
poll  tax  of  female 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  49) 
residence,  qualification  of 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  45) 
N'oting  precincts 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  37) 

Warden  of  Coat  Room,  compensation  of 510 

elected    22 

how  chosen    19 

Woinari's  SuflPrage 

(See  index  to  Resolution  No.  7) 

committee  on,  how    chosen    82 

appointed     85 


IV. 
l^^DEX  OF  EESOLIJTIONS. 


INDEX  OF  EESOLUTIONS. 


Resolution  No.  1,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  25;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  26;  considerC'l 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  report  progress,  106;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  145;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  reported  with  Madden 
resolution,  336;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
336;    report,  inexpedient,  541;   report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  2,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Introduced,  26;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  26;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  73-78;  report  progress,  78;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  98-106;  report  progress,  106;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  145;  con- 
sidered in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  considered  in  Commit- 
tee of  Whole,  390-400;  report,  401;  referred.  Committee  on  Leg- 
islative Department,  401;  report,  inexpedient,  541;  report 
adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  3,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Con- 
stitution. 
Introduced,  26;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  27;  considered 
In  Committee  of  Whole,  446-452;  report  progress,  452;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  499-509;  report,  inexpedient,  509; 
report  adopted,  509. 

Resolution  No.  Jf,  Relating  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  and 
Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitutimi. 
Introduced,  27;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  30;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  152-199;  report,  recommendation  that 
resolution  be  not  agreed  to,  199;  yeas  and  nays,  199;  recom- 
mendation adopted,  202. 

Resolution  No.  5,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  and  Forest  Land 
and  Money  at  Interest. 
Introduced,  32;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  34;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  45-56;  report  progress,  56;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole  (Mitchell  amendment  introduced),  114- 
116;    amendment   reported,  ordered   printed,   116;    considered   in 

695 


696    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Committee  of  Whole,  204-272;  report  progress,  272;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  278-312;  reported  with  Jones  resolu- 
tion, 312;  referred  Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  312; 
report,  inexpedient,  509;  report  adopted,  510. 

Resolution  No.  6,  Relating  to  Grading  of  Inlwritance  Taxes  an^ 
E.i'emptions. 
Introduced,  34;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  34;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  67-72;  agreed  to,  72;  referred,  Commit- 
tee on  Time  and  Mode,  72;  report  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode, 
545;  question  submitted  (No.  4),  563;  resolution  as  adopted  by 
Convention,  569;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended, 
576;  vote  of  people,  584;  proclamation,  617. 

Resolution  No.  7,  Relating  to  Female  Suffrage. 

Introduced,  34;  tabled,  35;  motion  to  take  from  table,  80;  nega- 
tive prevailed,  80;  taken  from  table,  referred.  Special  Committee 
on  Woman's  Suffrage,  97;  report,  majority  inexpedient,  minor- 
ity recommendation  that  amendment  be  agreed  to,  337;  made 
Special  order,  338;  considered  in  Convention,  410-430;  yeas  and 
nays,   430-433;    minority  report  adopted,  433. 

Resolution  No.  8,  Relating  to  Election  of  Certain  Officers. 

Introduced,  35;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  35;  order  va- 
cated, referred.  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  407;  report,  in- 
expedient, 443;  report  adopted,  444. 

Resolution  No.  9,  Relating  to  Tenure  of  Office  of  Certain  Officers. 

Introduced,  35;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  36;  order  va- 
cated, referred.  Judicial  Department,  85;  report,  inexpedient, 
277;   adopted,  278. 

Resolution  No.  10,  Relating  to  Voting  Precincts. 

Introduced,  37;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  38;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  58-65;  agreed  to,  65;  referred,  Commit- 
tee on  Time  and  Mode,  65;  order  vacated,  408;  reconsidered,  not 
agreed  to,  408. 

Resolution  No.  11,  Relating  to  Ftiture  Mode  of  Amending  the  Con- 
stitution. 
Introduced,  38;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  39;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  446-452;  report  progress,  452;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  499-509;  report,  inexpedient,  509; 
report  adopted,  509. 

Resolution  No.  12,  Relating  to  Jurisdiction  of  Justices  of  the  Peace. 
(Police  Courts.) 
Introduced,  39;    referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  40;    order  va- 


Index.  697 

cated,  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  274;  re- 
port, recommendation  that  resolution  be  agreed  to,  379;  con- 
sidered in  Convention,  379-388;  report  adopted,  388;  referred, 
Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  388;  report,  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode,  545;  question  submitted  (No.  10),  564;  resolution 
as  adopted  by  Convention,  571;  parts  of  Constitution  altered 
and  amended,  581;  vote  of  people,  586;  prcelamation,  617; 
amended  Constitution,  649. 

Resolution  No.  13,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  40;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  41;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  report  progress,  106;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  144;  con- 
siderea  in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  reported  with  Madden 
resolution,  336;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
336;   report,  inexpedient,  541;   report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  14,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  41;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  42;  statistics 
submitted,  42;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  re- 
port progress,  106;  considered  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  118- 
144;  report  progress,  144;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole, 
315-336;  reported  with  Madden  resolution,  336;  referred,  Com- 
mittee on  Legislative  Department,  336;  report,  inexpedient,  541; 
report  adopted,   541. 

Resolution  No.  15,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  42;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  43;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  report  progress,  106;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  144; 
considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  reported  with  Mad- 
den resolution,  336;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 336;   report,  inexpedient,  541;  report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  16,  Relating  to  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Con- 
stitution. ' 
Introduced,  43;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  44;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  446-452;  report  progress,  452;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  499-509;  report,  inexpedient,  509; 
report  adopted,  509. 

Resolution  No.  17,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Introduced,  44;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 44;  report,  inexpedient,  541;   report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  18,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  57;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole.  57;  statistics 
submitted,  57:  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106:  report 


698     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

progress,  106;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  re- 
port progress,  144;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  :U5-336; 
reported  with  Madden  resolution,  336;  referred.  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  336;  report,  inexpedient,  541;  report 
adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  19,  Relating  to  tJie  Senate. 

Introduced,  65;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  66;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  73-78;  report  progress,  78;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  98-106;  report,  inexpedient,  106; 
adopted,  106. 

Resolution  No.  20,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  County  Officers. 

Introduced,  66;  referred,  Committee  on  Future  Mode,  67;  re- 
port, inexpedient,  337;   report  adopted,  339. 

Resolution  No.  21,  Relating  to  Appointment  of  Solicitors. 

Introduced,  67;  referred.  Committee  on  Future  Mode,  67; 
report,  inexpedient,  338;    adopted,   339. 

Resolution  No.  22,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  72;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  73;  statistics 
introduced,  73;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  re- 
port progress,  106;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144; 
report  progress,  144;  considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  315- 
336;  reported  with  Madden  resolution,  336;  referred,  Commit- 
tee on  Legislative  Department,  336;  report,  inexpedient,  541; 
report  adopted,    541. 

Resolution  No.  2S,  Relating  to  Pensions. 

Introduced,  81;  referred.  Bill  of  Rights,  81;  report,  recom- 
mendation that  amendment  be  not  agreed  to,  437;  considered 
in  Convention,  437-443;  recommendation  not  adopted,  443; 
amendment  agreed  to,  443;  referred.  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode,  443;  report.  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  545;  question 
submitted  (No.  9),  563;  resolution  as  adopted  by  Convention, 
571;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended,  581;  vote  of 
people,  586;   proclamation,  617. 

Resolution  No.  2Jt,  To  Strike  Out  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  the  Words, 
''Protestant"  and  "Evangelical." 
Introduced,  81;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  82;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  274-276;  report,  resolution  be  agreed 
to,  276;  adopted,  277;  referred.  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode, 
277;  report,  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  545;  question  sub- 
mitted (No.  6),  563;  resolution  as  adopted  by  Convention,  569: 
parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended,  577;  vote  of  people, 
584;    proclamation,    617. 


Index.  699 

Resolution  No.  25,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Introduced,  86;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  87;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  report  progress,  106;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  144; 
considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  considered  in  Com- 
mittee of  Whole,  390-400;  report,  401;  referred.  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department,  401;  report,  inexpedient,  541;  report 
adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  26,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  Representatives  in 
Cities  und  Towns  of  Less  Than  800  Inhabitants. 
Introduced,  87;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  87;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  report  progress,  106;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  144;  con- 
sidered in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  reported  with  Madden 
resolution,  336;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
336;   report,  inexpedient,  541;   report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  27,  Relating  to  the  Bouse  of  Representatives  and  Sen- 
ate and  the  Compensation  of  Officers  and  Members  Tliereof. 
Introduced,    87;    referred.    Committee    on   Legislative   Depart- 
ment, 88;  report,  inexpedient,  509;   report  adopted,  509. 

Resolution  No.  28,  Providing  for  Election  by  Plurality  Vote  of  Gov- 
ernor and  Other  Officials. 
Introduced,  88;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 89;  order  vacated,  referred.  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights, 
401;  report,  recommendation  that  resolution  be  agreed  to,  444; 
considered  in  Convention,  444-445;  report  adopted,  445;  referred, 
Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  445;  report.  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode,  545;  question  submitted  (No.  8),  563;  resolution  as 
adopted  by  Convention,  571;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and 
amenaed,  579;  vote  of  people,  586;  proclamation,  617;  amended 
Constitution,  638,   639,  641,  646. 

Resolution  No.  29,  Relating  to  the  Recall. 

Introduced,  89;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  90;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  389-390;  report,  inexpedient,  390;  re- 
port adopted,  390. 

Resolution  No.  30,  Relating  toi  County  Officers. 

Introduced,  90;  referred.  Bill  of  Rights,  90;  order  vacated, 
referred,  Committee  on  Future  Mode,  204;  report,  inexpedient, 
338;  considered  in  Convention,  339-341;   report  adopted,  341. 

Resolution  No.  31,  Relating  to  Approval  of  Bills. 

Introduced,  90;  referred.  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  90; 
reported    in   new   draft,   with   recommendation   the   amendment 


700    Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

be  agreed  to,  479;  report  adopted,  480;  referred,  Committee  on 
Time  and  Mode,  480;  report,  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  545; 
question  submitted  (No.  12),  564;  resolution  as  adopted  by  Con- 
vention, 571;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended,  582; 
vote  of  people,  586;  proclamation,  617. 

Resolution  No.  32,  Amending  Article  5,  Section  2,  of  the  Constitution^ 
Establishing  Betterment  Laws. 
Introduced,    90;    referred,    Committee    on    Legislative   Depart- 
ment,  91;    report,   inexpedient,   389;    report  adopted,   389. 

Resolution  No.  33,  Relating  to  Taxation. 

Introduced,  91;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  92;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  204-272;  report  progress,  272; 
considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  278-312;  reported  with 
Jones  resolution,  312;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  De- 
partment, 312;  report,  inexpedient,  477;   report  adopted,  477. 

Resolution  No.  34,  Relating  to  Election  of  Officials  by  Plurality  Vote. 
Introduced,  93;    referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  93;    order  va- 
cated,  referred,   Committee   on   Bill   of  Rights,   401;    report,  in- 
expedient, 445;   report  adopted,  446. 

Resolution  No.  35,  Relating  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  93;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  94;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  97-106;  report  progress,  106;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  118-144;  report  progress,  144;  con- 
sidered in  Committee  of  Whole,  315-336;  reported  with  Mad- 
den resolution,  336;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 336;  report,  inexpedient,  541;   report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  36,  Relating  to  the  Election  of  Officials  by  a  Plurality 
of  Votes. 
Introduced,    94;    referred.    Committee   on    Bill   of    Rights,    94; 
report,  inexpedient,  445;  report  adopted,  446. 

Resolution  No.  37,  Relating  to  Income  'law. 

Introduced,  95;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  95;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  204-272;  report  progress,  272;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  278-312;  reported  with  Jones  reso- 
lution, 312;  referred.  Committee  on  ^legislative  Department,  312; 
report,  inexpedient,  478;    report  adopted,  478. 

Resolution  No.  38,  Relating  to  Corporation  Salaries  and  Dividends. 

Introduced,  95;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  95;  considered 
in  Committee  of  Whole,  401-406;  report,  inexpedient,  406;  report 
adopted,  407. 


Index.  701 

Resolution  No.  39,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Wild  Lands. 

Introduced,  95;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  97;  considered 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  204-272;  report  progress,  272;  con- 
sidered in  Committee  of  Whole,  278-312;  reported  with  Jones 
resolution,  312;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
312;    report,    inexpedient,   478;    report    adopted,  '478. 

Resolution  No.  40,  Relating  to  County  Commissioners. 

Introduced,  97;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  97;  order  va- 
cated, referred  Committee  on  Future  Mode,  204;  report,  inex- 
I>edient,  338;  report  adopted,  339. 

Resolution  No.  Jfl,  Relating  to  the  Registei^s  of  Prohate. 

Introduced,  107;  referred,  Committee  on  Judicial  Department, 
108;  order  vacated,  referred.  Committee  on  Future  Mode,  204; 
report,  inexpedient,  338;  report  adopted,  339. 

Resolution  No.  42,  Relating  to  the  Registers  of  Deeds. 

Introduced,  108;  referred.  Committee  on  Judicial  Department, 
108;  order  vacated,  referred.  Committee  on  Future  Mode,  204; 
report,  inexpedient,  338;  report  adopted,  339. 

Resolution  No.  4S,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Introduced,  108;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 109;   report,  inexpedient,  541;    report  adopted,  541. 

Resolution  No.  4't,  Relating  to  Couneilor  Districts. 

Introduced,  109;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  109;  order  va- 
cated, referred  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  401;  report,  recom- 
mendation that  amendment  be  agreed  to,  adopted,  444;  referred, 
•Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  444;  report.  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode,  545;  question  submitted  (No.  11),  564;  resolution  as 
adopted  by  Convention,  571;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and 
amended,  581;  vote  of  people,  586;  proclamation,  617;  amended 
Constitution,  647. 

Resolution  No.  45,  Relating  to  Residence  Qnalificafion  of  Voters. 

Introduced,  109;  referred,  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  110; 
report,  inexpedient,  adopted,,  409. 

Resolution  No.  JfG,  Relating  to  the  Qualification  of  Voters. 

Introduced,  110;  referred,  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  111; 
reported  in  new  draft,  recommendation  that  amendment  be 
agreed  to,  409;  report  adopted,  410;  referred.  Committee  on 
Time  and  Mode,  410;  report,  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode, 
545;  question  submitted  (No.  7),  563;  resolution  as  adopted  by 
Convention,  570;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended, 
578;  vote  of  people,  586;  proclamation,  617;  amended  Consti- 
tution, 625. 


702     Journal  of  Constitutional  Convention. 

Resolution  No.  47,  Relating  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

Introduced,  111;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 114;  report,  majority,  inexpedient,  minority,  recommenda- 
tion that  resolution  be  agreed  to,  341;  considered  in  Convention, 
342-375;  yeas  and  nays,  376;  majority  report  adopted,  379. 

Resolution  No.  Jf8,  Relating  to  Roll-Cull  in  the  Legislature. 

Introduced,  114;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  114;  order  va- 
cated, referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  203; 
report,  inexpedient,  478;    report  adopted,  479. 

Resolution  No.  4^,  Relating  to  Poll  Tax  of  Female  Voters. 

Introduced,  116;  referred.  Special  Committee  on  Woman's 
Suffrage,  116;   report,  inexpedient,  adopted,  274. 

Resolution  No.  50,  Relating  to  Taxes. 

Introduced,  145;  referred.  Committee  of  Whole,  145;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  204-272;  report  progress,  272; 
considered  in  Committee  of  Whole,  278-312;  reported  with  Jones 
resolution,  312;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
312;  report,  inexpedient,  479;  report  adopted,  479. 

Resolution  No.  51,  Relating  to  Taxation  of  Incomes. 

Introduced,  145;  referred,  Committee  of  Whole,  145;  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  Whole,  204-272;  report  progress,  272;  con- 
sidered in  Committee  of  Whole,  278-312;  reported  with  Jones 
resolution,  312;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
312;  report,  inexpedient,  479;  report  adopted,  479. 

Resolution  No.  52,  Relating  to  Betterments. 

Introduced,  145;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 146;   report,  inexpedient,  388;   report  adopted,  389. 

Resolution  No.  53,  Relating  to  the  Council. 

Introduced,  146;  referred,  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  146; 
report,  inexpedient,  475;  report  adopted,  475. 

Resolution  No.  54,  Relating  to  Election  of  Governor  hy  Plurality  Vote. 
Introduced,  146;    referred,  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  147; 
report,  inexpedient,  445;   report  adopted,  446. 

Resolution  No.  55,  Relating  to  Election  of  Senators. 

Introduced,  147;  referred.  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, 148;  order  vacated,  referred  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights, 
401;  report,  inexpedient,  446;  report  adopted,  446. 

Resolution  No.  56,  Relating  to  the  Charter  of  Cities. 

Introduced,  148;  referred,  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment,  150;    report,   inexpedient,  477;    report   adopted,  478. 


Index.  703 

Resolution  No.  57,  Relal'mg  to  the  Crmncil. 

Introduced,  150;  referred,  Committee  of  the  Whole,  151;  order 
vacated,  referred  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights,  401;  report,  in- 
expedient, 475;  report  adopted,  475. 

Resolution  No.  58,  Relating  to  Taxation. 

Introduced,  433;  made  special  order,  435;  reconsidered,  re- 
ferred, Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  436;  report, 
recommendation  that  amendment  be  agreed  to,  453;  consid- 
ered in  Convention,  453-472;  agreed  to,  472;  referred.  Committee 
on  Time  and  Mode,  472;  recalled,  480;  reconsidered,  referred 
Legislative  Committee,  481;  reported  with  amendment,  513; 
amendment  adopted,  515;  resolution  agreed  to,  515;  referred, 
Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  515;  report,  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode,  545;  question  submitted  (No.  3),  562;  resolution  as 
adopted  by  Convention,  568;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and 
amended,  574;  vote  of  people,  584;  proclamation,  617. 

Resolution  No.  59,  Relating  to  Tawation  of  PuUic  Service  Oorpora- 
tions. 
Introduced,  473;  considered  in  Convention,  473-475;  made  Spe- 
cial Order,  475;  considered  in  Convention,  481-498;  agreed  to, 
499;  referred,  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  499;  report,  Com- 
mittee on  Time  and  Mode,  545;  question  submitted  (No.  5), 
563;  resolution  as  adopted  by  Convention,  569;  parts  of  Consti- 
tution altered  and  amended,  576;  vote  of  people,  584;  proclama- 
tion, 617. 

Resolution  No.  60,  Relating  to  the  Bouse  of  Representatives. 

Introduced,  515;  minority  report,  517;  considered  in  Con- 
vention, 519-539;  agreed  to,  540;  referred.  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode,  540;  report  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  545;  ques- 
tion submitted  (No.  2),  562;  resolution  as  adopted  by  Conven- 
tion, 567;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended,  572;  vote 
of  people,  584;  proclamation,  617. 

Resolution  No.  61,  Relating  to  the  Senate. 

Introduced,  540;  agreed  to,  541;  referred.  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode,  541;  report.  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode,  545; 
question  submitted  (No.  1),  562;  resolution  as  adopted  by  Con- 
vention, 567;  parts  of  Constitution  altered  and  amended,  572; 
vote  of  people,  584;  proclamation,  617. 


'  O       JC3  i  ^O 


